·     The wa at the start of Grube-FoGX.p12.fig20b is the phonetic complement for AJAW.

·     Do not confuse this with the phonetically similar chok = “to scatter”.

·     Syllabogram vs. logogram:

o JM.p78.5 & JM.p79.1 give the “goggle eyes” element as a ch’o (in addition to the well-known “rat-head” variant) variant but says nothing about the “row of teeth in mouth” element.

o MC.p158.c2.r4 gives the “row of teeth in mouth” element as a further variant of ko (in addition to the well-known “turtle-shell” variant) but says nothing about the “goggle eyes” element.

o Put together, one might think that the ch’o has two variants (“rat head” and “goggle eyes”), and the ko has two variants (“turtle-shell” and “row of teeth in mouth”).

o For a different analysis, see Grube-FoGX below.

·     Grube-FoGX.p11-12 gives examples of ch’ok outside of Glyph-B of the SS (u-ch’ok k’aba’) where:

o The “goggle eyes” element is used.

o With the bottom element either the “turtle-shell” or the “row of teeth in mouth”.

o However, the “row of teeth in mouth” only ever appears in combination with the “goggle eyes”.

o So the “goggle eyes” + “row of teeth in mouth” (together) could be considered a logogram for CH’OK (without a phonetic complement), while the “goggle eyes” + “turtle-shell” could be the CH’OK with a phonetic complement of ko, where the phonetic complement is infixed in and completely obscures the bottom part of the CH’OK, i.e. where the “row of teeth in mouth” completely obscures the “turtle-shell”).

o The clincher to this argument is that if the “goggle eyes” and the “row of teeth in mouth” were really variants of ch’o and ko (respectively), then one would expect to see both of them in other words beginning with ch’o or ending in -ok (respectively). The fact that they don’t (but only occur in the word ch’ok) means that they are not syllabograms, but actually, together, constitute the CH’OK.

·     For the reason given immediately above, the JM transliterations as syllabograms can now be considered incorrect – all three are in fact CH’OK. Note that TOK even considers the “goggle eyes” alone (without the “row of teeth in mouth”) sufficient for CH’OK.

·     Many examples of “row of teeth in mouth” have flanking elements:

o Symmetrically, one on each side of the “row of teeth in mouth”.

o In one example also flanking elements, one on each side of the “goggle eyes” (PAL House C West Court).

o These flanking elements are “cheek marks” on either side of the mouth:

§ http://research.mayavase.com/kerrmaya.html via FAMSI/ -> Resources -> Kerr -> K???? & K 1185.

K1185

§ The above is a “profile view” of CH’OK – there is one “goggle” and two short, curved lines next to the mouth.

§ If viewed from the front, one would see two goggles and the flanking elements on both sides of the mouth, under the goggles.

 

·     Many modern Mayan languages have a word descended from the Proto-Mayan word meaning “rat”, so it is clear that the origin of the glyph was as a depiction of a rat (the infixed “darkness” further supports this). But it is less clear whether there are any Classic Maya texts where this glyph is used to actually write the word in its meaning of “rat”; instead, it is encountered as just the syllabogram ch’o.

·     Some modern sources list the syllabogram-only spelling ch’o[ko] as a logogram CH’OK. (e.g. K&H.p82.pdfp84.#1). This is because in some senses, it became “fossilized” as a logogram, and some scribes then added a further ko to ch’o-ko, as an end phonetic complement to the “logogram” CH’OK (even though a ko was already present, infixed in the cho) – PUS Stela U A7 and YAX Lintel30 F5 in the examples above.