·     This phrase actually means “(the) dear one” or “(the) loved one” or “(the) beloved one”. The meanings of “child” and “mother” are not inherent in the word and are only present in the context of a parentage statement (with u-): u juun tahn <X> è “(the) dear one of <X>” è “(the beloved) child of (mother) <X>”. For example, on the rim of the PAL Sarcophagus Lid, glyph-block #54, where Pakal the Great is described as “(beloved) child of (mother) Ix Sak K’uk’”. However, in PAL TI CT F7, it is the Palenque Triad who are the “dear ones” of K’inich Janaab Pakal, and there is no question of a child-parent relationship .

·     AT-E1168-lecture23.t0:41:25-42:24: And then gods are described as juun tahn, literally the same term that is used for babies, so they’re cherished, literally: close to the chest. So, gods are to the king just like babies to their mothers. And sometimes gods are literally shown as little babies – little effigies. And we actually have a few archaeological examples. They’re mostly perishable, but at the site of Tikal, they were able to retrieve several of those by inserting plaster of Paris into the voids left by the decayed wooden objects inside the tomb. And that’s what they got, these images. The painting [paint] survived, so by inserting plaster inside, you get the painted object out of it. So the wood would be gone, but the layer of paint around it would still be in place, and then the plaster would get stuck to the paint, and you would be able to extract the whole thing. So we know that what they’re showing here [Tokovinine points to the two small effigies in the laps of the father and mother in the iconography of the inscription] is probably real – [the] effigies of gods.

·     AT-E1168-lecture23.t0:42:24-42:54: I like this panel from Dumbarton Oaks. You see how they are like baby-like gods? So there’s a Baby K’awiil and a Baby God of the Royal Crown [Sim: see next bullet point]. And they’re literally tickling them. So they’re playing with this intimate relationship between gods and humans. So, gods are these incredibly powerful beings, but humans are supposed to sustain them. And this very close relationship is described as a relationship between a mother and her offspring, her baby.

·     In the name Ix Juun Tahn Ahk, the “Juun Tahn” is part of her name, not a parentage statement – there is no possessive-u prefixing it, and it isn’t followed by the name of the parent. When used as a parentage statement, it is u-juun-tahn.

·     There are a few open questions about the gender of the child and the gender of the parent. Gloria Tuszyńska says it is “son of mother”, and in all the examples in her thesis the parent is a woman?

o    Could probably be viewed more generally as “child of mother” (look out for examples with a female child; i.e. daughter of mother).

o    K&H Wayeb 2020 Workbook p44 gives this as “beloved child” (so doesn’t restrict the gender of the parent to being female) – this might be inaccurate because it’s based on a less thorough investigation than Gloria’s.