BMM9.p17.pdfp17.r4.c2 = 25EMC.pdfp30.#6
BATZ’ BATZ’
· Only given in BMM9 and 25EMC, no glyphs given in K&H, K&L, TOK.
· It does not seem to have been assigned a code in MHD and Bonn (not seen in an extensive visual scan of both). Furthermore:
o Nothing is glossed as “howler monkey” in MHD – the only glyph glossed with “monkey” is MAAX = “spider monkey”.
o Bonn has not, as yet, published any meanings assigned to their glyph inventory, so no search based on meaning is currently possible on the Bonn glyphs.
· EB.p36.pdfp41.#8	 list four inscriptions with the word batz' / batz’ul = "howler monkey", but only one of the four is a logogram - the other three are syllabogram-only spellings. The sole logogram entry is:
o batz’ul n. “howler monkey” » BAH/ba-BATZ’UL? > batz’ul “howler monkey” K5070.
o There’s also a footnote EB.p36.pdfp41.#8.fn42: There seems to be a subtle graphic difference in the portrait heads of the howler monkey and the spider monkey as the signs entered the writing system (Boot, in prep.). [Sim: Unfortunately, such a paper doesn’t seem to have been published.]
o Sim: The glyph in question on K5070 appears to be at glyph-block R2 (EB doesn’t give the glyph-block reference). Glyph-blocks R1-R2 form a tag labelling the image of a monkey appearing in the iconography (a group of three animals). However, MHD reads R2 as MHD.AM1 = MAAX, not BAATZ’. In the iconography, the arms and legs of the monkey are indeed quite "thin and wavy", and the body is (reasonably) slim. There is a bit of a potbelly, which could be baatz' more than maax, but it's generally a thin figure which seems more like maax. Based on the iconography, it seems possible that Boot was wrong, and that K5070 R2 is MAAX, as given by MHD.]
o The example given by BMM9/25EMC:
|
|
|
|
|
BMM9/25EMC |
K5070 R2 |
MHD.AM1.1&2&3 |
§ Doesn’t very much resemble K5070 R2 – they both share a tuft of hair on the forehead, but many other features are different:
· Cross-hatched area vs. no cross-hatched area in the bottom right.
· Fancy ear vs. no(?) fancy ear.
· Oval surrounding the top half of the eye vs. no oval surrounding the top half of the eye.
· No spiral / scroll to the right of the mouth vs. spiral / scroll to the right of the mouth.
§ In some respects more resembles MHD.AM1.1:
· Both have a tuft of hair.
· Both have a row of many slightly curved vertical ticks along the top of the head.
· Both have a “washer” eye.
· Both have an oval surrounding the top half of the eye.
· Both have an element to the bottom left of the ear (though BMM9/25EMC has cross-hatching and MHD.AM1.1 doesn’t).
· Both have a “fancy ear”.
The chances are high that the same real-life monument was the basis for BMM9/25EMC and MHD.AM1.1.
o Nevertheless, MHD reads AM1 as MAAX not as BAATZ’, so it is still the case that BMM9/25EMC recognizes a logogram BAATZ’ whereas the other teaching resources and MHD do not. This means that there is no clear indication of a real-life logogram for BAATZ’ (as given by BMM9/25EMC).
· The absence of clear proof that there’s a logogram for BAATZ’ says nothing about the existence of a Classic Maya word baatz’ for “howler monkey”. There exist syllabogram-only spellings for baatz’ and Kaufman-APMED.p558.pdfp558 lists more than 20 examples from the modern Mayan languages of very obvious cognates meaning “howler monkey”. Furthermore, EB.p36.pdfp41.#8	 list 3 instances of syllabogram-only spellings, with references to real-life inscriptions (see syllabogram-only spellings below).
· Do not confuse baatz’ = “howler monkey” with the phonetically (slightly) similar baax = “quartz”.
JM.p42.#4 Coll-2 / Stone (MHD)
NTN Drawing No.70 A5
ba.tz’u IX.<ba:tz’a>
· Pronunciation:
o MC.p131.7 gives baatz’ (actually baats’ in the old spelling).
o The spelling baatz’, with long a, is very common in articles referring to the howler monkey (in a Mexican/Maya context) which are not specialist articles on Classic Maya epigraphy/pronunciation. Perhaps it’s the normal word in one of the modern Mayan languages?
o K&H.p99.#6 gives ba’tz’, perhaps because of the spelling ba-tz’u (JM.p42.#4), which indicates a glottalized main vowel according to the Wichmann-Lacadena rules. Note however that NTN Drawing No.70 A5 has ba-tz’a (which could of course have been after the loss of the distinction in vowel length).
o JM.p42.#4 gives batz’ (but JM never indicates vowel length or other non-short quality anyway).
o EB.p36.pdfp41.#8 gives batz’ n. “howler monkey” (but EB never indicates vowel length or other non-short quality anyway).
o The batz’ (EB.p36.pdfp41.#8) vs. batz’ul in (EB.p36.pdfp41.#9) is due to the perennial problem of whether the last syllabogram has a silent final vowel and Is present only for the sake of its initial consonant (and possible indication of vowel quality of the preceding vowel) vs. the vowel of the last syllabogram contributing to the sound of the word, with an actual consonant pronounced after it (in this case -l), underspelled. However, the batz’ul reading is perhaps old-fashioned, as more recent works have only batz’.