[Aztlan] EK and CHAY glyphs related?

[Barb MacLeod]

I'll edit and reply between paragraphs.


Gary said:

***
OK, so inverting a sign almost always changes its meaning. What I'm trying
to understand is what does it mean when I see the EK' glyph drawn different
ways. I'm assuming the version on page 73 of the Intro to Maya Hieroglyphs
workbook is the "standard" way of drawing the glyph (otherwise, why would it
be in an introductory workbook?) So if this is the "standard" way, why do I
sometimes see the EK' glyph drawn inverted and still labeled as EK' or "star
glyph"? 

***

Because in the case of this sign, inversion does not change the meaning.

Aaron said:

***
With this particular form, I doubt the inversion of the glyph can be very significant since I'm pretty sure the truncated Lamat glyph means Star regardless of it's orientation. The full (non truncated) Lamat day-sign displays a quadrilateral symmetry, therefore a change in meaning based on any (re)orientation is highly dubious. (If you take the "W" form and wed it to the "M" form, you create the full "X" form.)

***

This is an astute comment in my view. There is no evidence that the STAR sign ( I don't think it actually reads 'star' in any but astronomical contexts) changes meanings when inverted, or when expanded to the full, quadrilaterally symmetrical form.

***

Gary said:

***
Are my sources simply incorrect (it wouldn't be the first time) or
is EK' one of the exceptions to the "almost always" rule? Can the EK' glyph
be drawn with any orientation and still mean 'star' when used within an
astronomical context?

***

As far as I know, it can have any orientation and not change meaning thereby.

Any source in a rapidly-evolving field, no matter how good (and this workbook is excellent!) can have data that is either outdated or controversial. The problem is complicated by the fact that as epigraphers tackle the really difficult remaining signs and share their best guesses, these ideas are disseminated without sufficient commentary for someone who is not on the inside of the dialogue to rank them. It's a persistent annoyance in Maya epigraphy and I run into it every time I try to explain that a certain sign has several suggested readings; here they are, here are the reasons each has been suggested, here's the support (or lack) for each, here's what I think, and so on. It makes epigraphy look far more like fuzzy guesswork than it is.

Gary said:

***
I can somewhat deduce an answer from the mere fact that the so-called CH'AY
glyph is referred to as "STAR with WATER DROPS." This tells me that even
when inverted the sign is still recognized as 'star', in this case with the
addition of water drops. Now  here's where I get doubly confused: did the
meaning of the glyph change to "destruction" because it was inverted or
because the water drops were added....or both? In other words, when the
CH'AY glyph was first discovered what was the main clue that made the
researcher realize this wasn't merely EK' but was a totally different
concept? Was it the inversion of the glyph, the water drops, or both? Did
the inversion matter AT ALL?

***

The inversion doesn't matter, but some feel the presence of the water drops matters. Most of the time they are there, and they may be simply a phonetic complement. But that's a long story. I don't think the sign is CH'AY or CHAY, by the way. I think Erik had it right the first time and our recent discussions have gathered a lot of support. 

Gary said:

***
Ah, the joys of language.

***
It takes serious effort to communicate clearly about complex ideas. Thanks for the effort you put into it. I am happy to try to answer your questions.

Aaron said:

***

My guess is that the dots you're wondering about represent water or blood, or more generally Ch'ul, sacred fluid. The Lamat glyph had associations with war events in the Classic period, as in "Venus Tlaloc warfare", so it's not suprising to see it, especially in conjunction with blood designs, used in the context of disaster. In this case, a literalistic reading might be more like 'blood star' or 'sacred star' than 'bad star'.

***

Linda Schele thought for a long time that the STAR-with-WATER DROPS sign related to war triggered by heliacal risings of Venus, but as far as I know, that idea has not held up. Furthermore, the word 'star' does not seem to be part of the reading. I certainly don't think so. It can be either an intransitive verb meaning 'collapse' or a noun meaning 'destruction' depending on its affixes.

Aaron said:

***

As for other inversions in Mayan, my understaning is that depending on the glyph, the significance is more likely to be in distinguishing between a phonetic and logographic reading, or otherwise subjective, perhaps simply aesthetic, criteria.

***

I agree with this.

Aaron said:

***

Glyphs designs aside, phonetic linguistic inversion is possibly more likely to emphasise a reflective, rather than simply negative relationship. For example, the root 'Nik' means flower, while the root 'Kin' means sun, indicating that flowers are reflections of the sun, not the negation of the sun. Perhaps adding some support to this notion, the root for mirror, 'Nen' is phonetically its own mirror image.

***

/k'iin/ vs. /nik/? Not too likely. While some see the K'IIN 'sun' sign as a flower, it is distinct from the sign that reads NIK 'flower'. And one has a glottalized consonant and a long vowel and the other does not. 

/neen/ is indeed a short-short palindrome, however.

On that note:

Stop, Syrian! I see bees in airy spots!
(ah, the joys of language indeed)

Barb