·     Note that there are 3 different inflectional forms for this verb – with -ji-ya, -ji, -ya (and even -AJ).

·     JM gives these as 2 different inflections -jiiy and -ij – perhaps these are dialectical or time differences: for the sake of simplicity, read these all as u-kab-jiiy (can be treated as underspellings).

·     The “standardized” literal translation I’ve decided to use for this is “he ordered it, <person-who-ordered-it>”. This comes from KAB meaning “(agricultural) land” è “the clearing and administration of the land” è administering, organizing, arranging, ordering in general. AT-E1168-lecture21.t0:32:52-33:39: Another set of metaphors that is sort of agricultural – the term kabaj. Kabaj literally means to cultivate a plot of land. But it also refers to the actions of the king. So the king does politics or time-rituals in the same way as the farmer prepares his plot of milpa – of his corn field. So literally “to manhandle the land”, “to handle the land”, “to work the land” is the main expression that describes the activities of the king: kabaj – “to tend” – we can translate it [as]. So chabaj in Tzotzil is “to cultivate” but also “to govern” – a really fascinating connection between the two terms.

·     AT-YT2021-lecture20.t1:04:03-1:06:12 explains that kab – when not occurring in its literal meaning of “earth” – almost always occurs in the forms ukabjiiy or ukabaj – in particular, that the form ukabaw is not found. This suggests that it isn’t a freely combining verb, and that there are good reasons for considering ukabjiiy and ukabaj to be “relational nouns”; i.e. grammatical words which express relationships between other nouns. This is done using the possessed form of a noun, as in yitaaj and yichnal, filling the role of prepositions in other languages. Tokovinine gives some very rare forms which argue against treating ukabjiiy and ukabaj in this way, but also gives counter-counter arguments to those rare forms. I’m accepting the original proposal, and group ukabjiiy and ukabaj with yitaaj and yichnal.

·     Although it has the outward appearance of a possessed inflection of kab, I’m treating it as a fossilized inflection that functions as a fixed and independent word. That’s the reason that this entry is listed under u- rather than k-.

·     The usual form is u.<KAB:<[ji]ya>> with the KAB separate and the ji and ya conflated, where the ji is the “horseshoe” variant. However, there is a rarer form u.<<[KAB]ji>:ya> (which nevertheless does occur from time to time) where the KAB and ji are conflated, and the ya is separate (where the ji is the “rat-head” variant). Some examples of this are:  BPK SS5 F1, PNG Panel 3 V10,  PAL Tablet of the 96 Glyphs A3. MatsumotoEtAl-STaIitCMKoST.p16.c2.para2: Another salient form on Panel 1 is a conflation of the head variant T1521st ji with T0526st KAB in the phrase u-kabijiiy (“the doing of; the tending of”; […]. Scarce in the Classic Maya corpus generally, occurrences in the western region are known at Bonampak and Piedras Negras but are overwhelmingly concentrated at Palenque, where scribes created at least nine examples on monuments dedicated between the mid-seventh and late eighth centuries […]. The combination is somewhat more widespread in the Central and Eastern Peten, but the only other lowland site with a half-dozen or more uses in monumental inscriptions seems to have been Quirigua (Figures 19e–19h). These details hint at the wide-ranging networks of exchange into which Lacanjá Tzeltal’s scribes were integrated, however indirect their ties to more distant polities may have been.