§ A syllabogram: t’o (with conch shell underneath).

§ A syllabogram: k’o (with twi mirror-image KAWAK’s underneath).

§ A logogram: SIBIK/SABAK (with an “ajaw strap” and, optionally, three darkened dots underneath).

§ Part of the undeciphered EG of MQL = “KUCH” with a TE’ underneath. This might be yet a fourth logogram (including the TE’) or the “KUCH” part may be a reduced variant of one of the preceding three.

i.e., there is no logogram KUCH in Classic Maya.

o Stuart-ANVotSk is one of the papers which contributed to viewing “KUCH” as part of k’o.

o On PAL TI Sarcophagus Lid (Edge) E14 (MHD “objabbr = PALTISL”) the SIBIK is even in its reduced form, with only the “KUCH”, as the TUUN:ni è tuunil obscures the main part of the logogram.

o MHD does not recognize KUCH. Instead, MHD treats KUCH as a reduced variant of MHD.ZCF and read both (the full and reduced variant) as k’o. However, in very many cases, the end result is quite similar in terms of the meaning. Where “KUCH” appears (with no cha or chi following), then it’s often read as k’o with an underspelled {-ch} following. This yields k’och, which is then translated as “to carry”.

·     Everything else which follows below is only retained for the “historic record”. This is because KUCH and HACH can still be encountered in older papers. None of it corresponds to anything accurate, in the light of later knowledge.

·     Differences in reading / pronunciation:

o This glyph was previously transliterated as KUCH.

o AT-E1168-lecture19.assignment10.KEY for TIK Temple 1 Lintel 3 C2 gives <HACH:ta>.ja è hachtaj = “was carried”.

o Stuart-TIfTXIX.p97.pdfp50.c2.para3.l+5 (with reference to Temple XIX West Plate C3b) explains the distinction between KUCH and HACH: This adverbial modifier precedes the curious spelling U-?-tu, the central unknown sign being T174, whose reading has proved difficult to determine, with varied proposals offered over the past decade or so. One possible value is KUCH, “carry,” which was considered independently by Macleod (personal communication 1993) and the author in 1993. Another reading I have more recently entertained is HACH, “to raise, lift.” The -tu suffix would be difficult to explain in combination with such verb roots, however. We will see a very similar construction further along in this text on the western side of the platform. // In combination with u-naah, “the first,” the glyph U-HACH?-tu is most likely a nominalized form of a verb found in several inscriptions beyond Palenque, spelled HACH?-ta-ja. The clearest and most revealing cases of this glyph appear on Lintel 3 of Temple I at Tikal (Figure 69), where it appears to refer to the parading of rulers and effigies in elaborate palanquins (Martin 1996). Other cases are attested at Naranjo and Caracol. The spelling HACH?-ta-ja might be interpreted as hach-t-aj, “he/she/it is lifted,” an appropriate description of the palanquin event.

o So Stuart-TIfTXIX sees not only two different pronunciations for this logogram, but a slight but significantly different meaning associated with each of the pronunciations.

§ Stuart does not give any other examples, nor cite any papers, but I surmise that the meaning “to raise, lift” is derived from a set of putative descendant words with similar form and meaning in the Colonial or modern Mayan languages.

§ AT-E1168-lecture19.assignment10.KEY appears to recognize the different pronunciation, but assigned HACH the same meaning as KUCH = “carry”.

·     “KUCH” with another element underneath:

o A symmetrical glyph resembling two KAWAK’s joined at the top to form an inverted-U.

o Alternatively, an inverted-U with such thick legs that there is almost no space “inside”, and with a “pond” in the end of each leg of the U (symmetrically placed so that the left pond is on the left side and the right pond is on the right side).

The combination of “KUCH” and the two-KAWAK element was deciphered by Stuart in 2020 (Stuart-ANVotSk) as being the syllabogram k’o.

·     There appears to be a Classic Maya word k’ochtaj related to “carrying” in some way, spelled in various combinations of k’o-ta-ja or k’o-chi. These can be found in MHD by searching on “blcodes contains ZCF” and “blengl contains carried”. This accounts for (only) 12 of the 94 instances of this “KUCH-variant” of k’o in MHD, but might perhaps be the source of the “misreading” kuch with the sense of “to bear”, “to carry”.

 

·     I’m unsure what to do with this entry, which was originally meant to be the syllabogram-only spelling of the logogram KUCH, as the “corresponding logogram” is no longer considered to have its own independent existence, but is instead considered to be just a component in (unrelated) logograms. I.e. it’s unclear to me whether there might have been a Classic Maya word kuch, with no logogram, but with this as its syllabogram-only spelling. Leaving it here for historical purposes, same as for the now defunct logogram.