·     This term is found exclusively in the possessed form yet k’aba’il.

·     Do not confuse ye-te è yet with ye-he-TE’ è yehte’ (particularly in some instances of the latter where the -h- is underspelled). They are phonetically (and graphically) similar, but:

o yet: is a monosyllable, with no -h- associated with the vowel, and does not end in a glottal-stop. Also, in its meaning of “namesake”, it’s always followed by k’aba’(il).

o yehte’: is disyllabic, has an -h- associated with the first vowel, and the second syllable ends in a glottal stop.

The other resemblance is that they both have ye at the start, but yet has a te at the end while yehte’ has a TE’ (used as a rebus?) at the end. Semantically, they are very far apart – the former is associated with a namesake and the latter is a “(military) deed”. One of the reasons for confusion is that they share identical syntax: both are preceded by the name of a person and followed by the name of another person.

·     AT-YT2021-lecture22.t0:34:00-34:50 provides a vital clue to reading glyph-block L2 of the PNG Shell Plaques as yet k’aba’il.

·     The series of references showing the “namesake” meaning is quite complex:

o Looper-ARotWBfT.p2 (1991) still reads TRT region Wooden Box J2 as “by the action of” / “by the work of”.

o HoustonEtAl-QaQiGNaA.p28.fig11.g and HoustonEtAl-QaQiGNaA.p29.table6.#12 (2001): ye-te-[k'a-b'a]-IL, y-etkab'al, followed by the name of what appears to be a goddess, Ixik matawi:l. [Sim: these show a drawing and a transliteration of PNG Shell Plaques from Burial 5 but do not appear to gloss this as “namesake”.]

o Zender&Guenter-TKoLCT.p7.c2.para3 (2000): Following this name are 3 glyph-blocks whose constituent signs can be read as ye-te k’ab’a-IL u-MAM. While these signs have previously been taken as introducing a fourth, otherwise unknown historical personage into the events surrounding this accession (Looper 1992), the ye- and -IL- signs are more likely to target a possessed nominal construction of the form y-et-k’ab’a-il u-mam, or “[Ik’ Muuy Muwahn is] the et-k’ab’a of his grandfather”. As Houston et al (1999) have noted, the rare compound noun et-k’ab’a (literally “property-name”) – identified by them in the inscriptions of Bonampak and Piedras Negras – conveys the sense of “namesake” (cf. Yukatek /etk’ab’a/ “de un mismo nombre con otro” [GT: “of the same name with another”], Barrera-Vasquez 1980:160)” ] Thus,  Ik’ Muuy Muwahn is clearly identified in the box text as “the namesake of his grandfather”. If we assume, for the moment, that B’alam Ajaw was succeeded by his son (the predominant pattern in Maya succession throughout the Classic Period), then it stands to reason that the Ik’ Muuy Muwahn of the Tortuguero Wooden Box ought to have had a grandfather of the same name, who should in turn have been the father of B’alam Ajaw. [è Houston, Robertson, Stuart; 1999 paper at EMC. I can find only HoustonEtAl-QaQiGNaA =  Quality and Quantity in Glyphic Nouns and Adjectives (Houston, Robertson, Stuart; 2001) – same title, same three authors, but with a publication date two years later.]

o Bíró-ONoM.p6 (2011): In D6 comes another rare collocation which can be transcribed as ye-ta K'AB'A’-a-li/ye’t-k'ab'a'il or 'namesake' (see Zender and Guenter 2000). [Sim: this is Zender&Guenter-TKoLCT.]

o MHD (2022) transliterates, transcribes, and translates TRT region Wooden Box J2-K1, PNG Shell Plaques from Burial 5 L2, BPK Stela 2 D6 as “namesake”.