·    Hamann-PiCM.p6.para1: As with other relationship terms, this is practically never found without the possessive prefix.

·    There are two versions of Tuszyńska-PhD on the net – an earlier version with 369 pages and no colourful cover and the final version with 420 pages and a colourful cover. In the official version, Table V is on pp63-64, in the earlier version Table V is on p55. The order of the rows is also somewhat different in the two versions of Table V.

·    We don’t assume that the T756 is xu (leading to axuun meaning “mother” and yaxuun meaning “mother of”) because there are various types of bat-head glyphs (e.g. upside-down, or K’IN in eye, with WINIK in the mouth, etc), and only one of them is definitely xu; varieties of bat are just as varied as felines (which have very varied pronunciations – BAHLAM, HIX, KOOJ), and have varied pronunciations also – TZUTZ, xu, tz’i, SUUTZ’.

·    Dorota Bojkowska: YAX Lintel 14 F4 is probably the bat-head glyph with a “WINIK-like” element in the mouth, and that one doesn’t have a known pronunciation (TOK.p30.r4.c3). Semantically, however, it fits with other “regular” bat-heads used in this context, because it’s used here to refer to the “mother of the ajaw” (the ajaw being written on top of the bat-head). Be careful to distinguish this from a similar glyph with a jaguar head, which also has a mammal ear, a darkness property marker, and a WINIK in the mouth. This latter is simply KOOJ = “puma”.

 

YAX Lintel 14 F4 ya.<<{na?}xu>:AJAW>	TOK.p30.r4.c3 ?	TOK.p31.r5.c3 KOOJ

 

Sim: despite the strong arguments for reading “yanax” at this point (the main one being that the name of the child follows), it seems odd that the -n- is not written (as, say, a syllabogram na).

 

·      The example for YAX Stela 4 ‘A7’ is interesting because, unlike most of the others, it doesn’t begin with the ergative pronoun (y-). Correspondingly, unlike the others, it also does not have the name of the son following this word. This means that whereas in most of the other inscriptions, the text reads “<name‑of‑mother>, mother of <name-of-son>”, here it only reads “<name-of-mother>, mother”.

·    Sim: in a large proportion of the examples, there is a bat-head and a na. In FLD Stela 9 C2, the order is very clearly ya:na:<bat-head>. Is this a good reason to think that the word is an-<something> (possessed: yan-<something>)?

·      Notes on YAX Lintel 54:

o Tuszyńska-PhD.p64.tab5 (last row) lists YAX Lintel 54 as an instance of having a “the mother of” relationship/parentage statement. However, none of the other glyphs in this lintel reflect that. This leaves only G1. Perhaps Tuszyńska reads this as na:xa:AJAW or xa:na:AJAW, and interprets this as being the statement that Ix Chak Xim is the mother of the ruler?

o All the other instances of this term have a na and (possibly) a xu (the bat-head, if it’s to be read as xu here). Is there a connection with the fact that YAX Lintel 54 G1 has a na and a xa? The loss of complex vowels at the end of the Late Classic could have na-xu è na’ax go to na-xa è nax. We need an initial vowel a-, in order to have the possessed form with a ya-. Unfortunately, no such syllabogram a is discernible in YAX Lintel 54 G1.

·      Purely as a memory aid, this relationship term can be read as “yanax” with the idea that somehow the uninflected form is ana(’)ax, with possessed form yana’ax, later simplified to yanax. As this is a “fake” form anyway, I use the “Late Classic” form with a short final syllable. As in the case of “UHMAN”, this is known to be incorrect, but is useful as a shorthand give the mind a “handle” on the term or glyph in question. It also enables one to search for this entry and to list it at a “known” spot in an ordered list (even if the reading is known to be incorrect).