In a previous work[205-1] I have expressed the opinion that the characters are to a certain extent phonetic--are not true alphabetic signs, but syllabic. And at the same time I expressed the opinion that even this definition did not hold true of all, as some were apparently ideographic, while others were simple abbreviated pictorial representations. In a subsequent paper[205-2] I expressed substantially the same opinion, and gave as my belief that one reason why attempts at decipherment have failed of success is a misconception of the peculiar character of the writing, which peculiarity is found in the fact that, as it exists in the codices and inscriptions, it is in a transition stage from the purely ideographic to the phonetic. I stated also my belief that the writing had not reached the stage when each sound was indicated by a glyph or sign. This may further be explained by the following illustration: The conventionalized figure of a turtlehead is the symbol for a "turtle," _ak_, _ac_, or _aac_ in Maya; and a conventionalized footprint is the symbol for "step" or "road," _be_, _beil_, in Maya. These may be brought together to form the word _akyab_ or _kayab_, which may have no reference to the original signification of the combined symbols. These two glyphs are, in fact, combined to form the symbol for the month _Kayab_. These statements will perhaps suffice to make clear my views on this question, which do not appear to have been clearly understood, possibly because of my frequent use of the words "phonetic" and "phoneticism," and perhaps rather loose reference to "letter elements." It is proper, however, to add that I am inclined to the opinion that modification in the form and details of a glyph which belongs to the class which, for want of a better term, we may designate "phonetic," in many cases indicates a modification or change in the signification or word value. I say in "many cases," because these modifications are due often to the greater or lesser accuracy with which the glyph is drawn, the caprice of the scribe, and other causes which have no reference to sound or signification. For example, the change of a rounded or circular symbol to a face figure, as is often done, does not appear, at least in the day signs, to have any significance. On the other hand, a slight variation, if permanent, may be indicative of a difference in signification or phonetic value. This appears to be true, to some extent, whether we consider the characters ideographic or as, in some sense, phonetic. The lists of the days in the Maya, Tzental, Quiche-Cakchiquel, Zapotec, and Nahuatl, in the order usually given, are as follows: _Names of the days in the different calendars_