K&L.p12.#4.1&2 = MC.p131.#2.2&1 = 25EMC.pdfp32.#2.1&2 [JM.p61.#2 = K&L.p12.#4.1]
CHIJ / KEJ CHIH CHIJ / KEJ CHIJ / CHIH
AV1a/s.1&2&3&4 0796st
CHIHJ / KEHJ / chi CHIJ / chi
K&L.p12.#4.3 MHD.AVA.1&2 0795st 0795md
CHIJ / KEJ ? CHIJ
· No glyphs given in K&H (or rather, not as logogram, only as day name), TOK, BMM9.
· JM: reading of chij given in paper edition, with chih added in the online version (edited by Christophe Helmke).
· Do not confuse this with the phonetically similar:
o chih = “pulque”
o chik = “coati”
· EB lists CHIH / CHIJ / KEJ – i.e. logogram spellings for this word, a reading of either -j or -h can be found.
· Variants (2):
o A. Head – features:
§ A mammal head, but without the standard mammal ear.
§ A medium-long nose with a characteristic row of dots also found in the EHM (in origin a raccoon).
§ A deer antler on the forehead.
o B. Body and bound legs – features:
§ K&L.p12.#4.3 appears to be the legs of a deer which has been caught and bound to prevent it escaping – the “MAY” hooves appear to be sticking out at the end of the bound legs. Note that it’s distinctly an upper and lower leg which are being bound together, in the MAY there is no binding on the hoof itself .
§ Only the rump and a pair of legs is represented – not the full body, head nor tail.
This appears to be quite an unusual variant. I have no reference to where it might occur. Do not confuse this with the visually similar and semantically related may = “deer”, “deer hoof” (used as a rebus for “gift” and “tobacco”):
§ CHIJ has more than just the hoof (it includes the haunch) whereas MAY shows only the hoof.
§ CHIJ shows the leg bound (presumably to stop the deer from escaping), whereas MAY has no binding at all.
· Curiously, MHD doesn’t assign a reading for the “bound legs” variant of this logogram.
AT-E1168-lecture11.t0:38:02 mayavase.com
Incised Travertine Vessel B2-B3 K4481 higher column of two glyphs
K’AHK’.<NEH:<[chi]hi>:●> XOOK u.<ba:hi> <AJ.chi>:hi
· Incised Travertine Vessel:
o The chi is infixed in the boulder-outline variant of hi. (Alternatively, it could be read as the reduced hi above the chi, but the former reading better explains the “blue dot” (see next bullet-point.)
o There’s an element consisting of five small touching dots at the bottom of the hi. It is shown as a blue dot ● in the transliteration. This element is pure decoration and doesn’t contribute to the reading of the text
· K4481:
o EB.p16.pdfp21.fn6 (regarding): The scribe employs the spelling chi-hi for chih “deer,” an indication that the final /j/ had evolved to final /h/ in this word.
o AT-E1168-lecture11.t0:40:15: K’AHK’.<NEH:[chi]hi XOOK è K’ahk’ Neh Chih Xook = “Fire Tail(ed) Deer Shark”.
o Two human figures are shown on K4481, and indeed, the figure on the right has a headdress which appears to be a deer-head:
mayavase.com
§ <AJ.chi>:hi è Aj Chij = “He of the Deer”. The AJ here is the “flaming ak’bal” variant.
§ MHD translates this as “Deer Hunter”.
§ A solitary glyph-block at the bottom of K4481 (not shown here) has u.<chi:hi>, but in that case it’s not another instance of the word “deer”. There it’s chi-hi è chih = “pulque”.
§ The two words, which were formerly distinguished, became homonyms as a result of the merger of /h/ and /j/ and so could be written with the same syllabograms.