Decipherment and the Relation between Mayan Languages and Maya Writing NICHOLAS A. HOPKINS FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY Hopkins begins with a discussion of methods of decipherment and concludes with arguments for an alternate interpretation of a sign read hi by Stuart (1987). Ten years later, the majority of epigraphers accept Stuart's reading. Nevertheless, Hopkins raises important points relating to the evaluation of proposed decipherments. And, ten years later, consensus among epigraphers remains greatest for those signs appearing in a variety of environments, especially those used to spell noun and verb roots, and ‘weakest for those signs indicating grammatical morphemes, particularly verbal affixes. Disagreement arises from uncertainty about the nature of verb morphology in lowland Mayan languages during the Classic Period. Noun and verb roots tend to remain stable though time and across related languages and dialects; the uses of morphological affixes are more varied. Likewise, the principle of synharmony of phonetic signs, which operates in virtually all syllabic writing systems, occurs most often in the spelling of noun and verb roots, and appears to be violated most often in words which are morphologically complex. Continued reconstruction of proto-Ch’olan and proto-Yucatecan morphological systems, coupled with detailed examination of patterns of syllabic spellings in the glyphic texts, can provide valuable information on Classic Period verb morphology. ‘A continuing problem is uncertainty about how Maya scribes used syllabic signs, particularly various combinations of vowels, glottal stops, and y. When a glyphic spelling appears to violate synharmony—when a CVC word is spelled with two CV syllabic signs, and the second sign has a vocalic value different from the first—epigraphers differ in their interpretations. Hopkins cautions that uncritically ignoring the value of the second vowel in these variant spellings is to risk loosing valuable information. Decipherment is the interpretation of hieroglyphic writing in terms of a spoken Janguage, the conversion of ciphers into plain text’ One can of course interpret an inscription without deciphering it, but if an inscription is deciphered, it is converted into a text ina spoken language. There are various degrees to which this can be done. One level of decipherment is represented by the translation, which expresses the content of the inscription in some language other than the original. Another level ‘encompasses glosses and paraphrases, which translate the content of an inscription to another language, but attempt to capture some of the grammatical and syntactic features of the original. A third level is that of readings, which render the text in the language in which the inscription was originally written. Legitimate differences of opinion can be held as to the content of an inscription, the nature of the graphic system used to record it, the grammatical and syntactic properties exemplified in a text, and other questions of fact Martha J. Macri and analysis. Likewise different opinions may be held as to what language was being recorded, and what the precise features of that language were at the relevant place and time. In this paper I review some of the issues raised by the current state of Mayan epigraphy, especialiy attempts to assign readings to words, phrases, or whole texts. This is an era of intense activity in the production of proposals concerning the language of the Maya hieroglyphic inscriptions. Workshops and conferences abound, and hardly an occasion goes by that does not witness the announcement of a newly deciphered syllable or word. In the frenzied excitement of such a time, it is easy to lose track of general principles of decipherment, even deliberately to ignore caution for the sake of squeezing out yet another decipherment. The scientific method Since activity is so intense, it is even more important to keep in mind that the scientific method and principles of decipherment do not 7exist to retard progress; they exist to make sure that progress is real rather than illusory. Bad methodology can be expected to produce a high percentage of bad decipherments, decipherments which appear to be valid only in the short run, but which in the long run will have to be discarded. This is not to say that even the best of methodologies applied in the most rigorous way will not occasionally produce incorrect decipherments, but the ratio of good to bad decipherments is maximized by the application of principles which tend to screen out proposals less likely to be true. The most destructive aspect of bad decipherments, that is, decipherments which are untrue, is that they contaminate good decipherments. They are in a sense like computer viruses; once they get into a system they infect everything with which they come into contact. New decipherments depend on the interpretation of a series of relations of substitution and contrast. In the course of the ‘examination of these relations, hypotheses about the possible values of a glyph are tested by seeing if the proposed values make sense in the contexts in which the glyph to be deciphered occurs. If the context is badly defined because of a previous mistake in decipherment, judgments about the acceptability of a value being tested will also be incorrect. An incorrect decipherment is not only wrong in and of itself, but it will cause other decipherments to be wrong as well, by misleading the investigator as to the nature of the contexts used to test hypotheses. Thus, in the early stages of decipherment, caution is in order not for ideological reasons, but for the extremely pragmatic reason that mistakes made early on will multiply themselves throughout the entire process of decipherment and result in a false picture of what the writing system is like, as well as obscuring the content of the inscriptions. antific objectivity In the search for correct decipherments, it must be kept in mind that the scientific method is concerned, not with proving hypotheses, but with testing hypotheses. The very essence of scientific objectivity is that just as vigorous a search must be made for evidence that would disprove the hypothesis as is made for evidence that would support it. The investigator should not be primarily concerned with demonstrating that his or her ideas are correct; rather he or she must first be concerned with discovering 8 whether or not that idea fits the facts, objectively evaluated. On the matter of objectivity and investigator bias, it is disappointing that in vanguard works in Maya hieroglyphics one is often left with the impression that a kind of selective ignorance is being practiced. The search for evidence stops when data supporting the hypothesis are found, and no exhaustive search is made for possible negative evidence. One is reminded of the old saw: “My mind is already made up; don’t confuse me with the facts.” This sort of approach may be acceptable in fields such as literary criticism, where one could argue that there is no truth to be discovered, only positions to defend. It is specifically alien to scientific research, in which it is assumed that there is a truth to be discovered, and that it can only be discovered through dispassionate, objective, honest examination of all the evidence. Use of sources From the linguist’s point of view, it is disturbing to see instances in which hypotheses are supported by the presentation of only part of the relevant linguistic evidence, particularly when the interpretation of the evidence presented seems forced in a direction favorable to the hypotheses. The available sources of data on Mayan languages, past and present, are by no means easy to use. But data from these difficult sources are routinely cited in support of epigraphic hypotheses by investigators who have no particular training in any of the fields which might prepare them to make a proper interpretation of the evidence: linguistics, Mayan languages, ethnohistory and the use of documentary sources, sixteenth century Spanish, modern regional dialect of New World Spanish, etc, In fact, it could be argued that the popularity of the Cordemex dictionary (Barrera Vasquez et al. 1980) as a source for supporting data in Mayan epigraphy is due only in part to its extensive compilation of Mayan lexicography. Lexical entries in the Cordemex are not analyzed morphologically; roots are not identified and given grammatical classification, and the glosses supplied are phrased in a Spanish that is often difficult to penetrate. The dictionary makes no attempt to clarify the meaning of glosses given in Spanish drawn from several centuries and many regional dialects. The entries thus provide a wonderful source of authentic Mayan data that can easily be misinterpreted on behalf of afavorite hypothesis. Whether this is done deliberately or unconsciously, it is clear from instance after instance of bent and twisted interpretations of Mayan language data that there is a crying need for higher standards of scholarship if we are serious about discovering the truth of the matter and not just playing with Maya inscriptions. We must make a greater effort to go beyond the limited data we have and try to understand what the realities of the linguistic situations were during the Classic period. It is imperative to remember that while the limited data may make it possible for us to sustain an unlikely argument simply for lack of contrary data, this has little bearing on the truth, that is, the real system used. by Classic Maya writers. Methodology ‘The methodology generally practiced in the decipherment of Maya hieroglyphic writing is a brand of structuralism, and is derived from the standard scientific method: observation of phenomena, formulation of hypotheses, testing of hypotheses, and evaluation of results. From observation, intuition, or uneasy dreams, an idea is formed about the possible value of a glyph (for instance, a semantic or phonetic value). In effect, a hypothesis is formulated. The glyph, along with whatever signs are considered its glyphic variants, is then tracked through its occurrences in the corpus to see if this value fits in all cases— testing and evaluation of results. While usually practiced in an informal way, the method is standard inductive empirical science. On the other hand, a strong element of deductive reasoning is characteristic of some research, most notable that of Fox and Justeson (1984, and Justeson and Campbell, this volume supra) who propose values for Maya glyphs on the basis of the structural and statistical characteristics of other writing systems elsewhere, moving from the characteristics of writing systems in general to those of Maya writing in particular. It is certainly true that Maya writing should obey whatever universals pertain to writing systems in general. But one should bear in mind that New World writing systems were developed in total isolation from the systems that have contributed to the formulation of these universals. Thus, Maya writing is potentially different. Maya writing is essentially the test case against which these universals can be judged, and as such it should be analyzed independently, without biasing its analysis towards supposed universal patterns or trends. Otherwise we run the risk of glossing over differences between Maya writing and other writing systems which could lead to the formulation of newer, more broadly applicable generalizations. Evaluation by consensus In the current exploratory phase of Maya decipherment, no fixed standards of proof have been developed. Readings and other interpretations are not judged right or wrong by applying some set of standard criteria of evaluation; rather, the acceptance of a decipherment is more a matter of consensus. In the best of cases, this consensus is drawn from a broad range of widely differing viewpoints, rather than from a small and like-minded work group. Thus, although the procedures of evaluation are informal, a reading or other interpretation, in order to be adopted in general practice, has to meet various criteria of evaluation, since many different interests are represented in the informal groups which confer acceptability. In general one is inclined to accept a reading if and only if (1) one agrees with the facts presented; (2) one accepts the methodology of decipherment and the principles of application; and most importantly, (3) the new reading is productive, that is, it leads to further insights, pethaps to further readings and decipherments. Different opinions about facts may involve either epigraphic or linguistic matters. For instance, one may not agree that all the epigraphic variants treated as a set are in fact allographs of the same sign. Or, one may disagree with the details of a grammatical or syntactic analysis, or about the identification of the target language. In current practice, methodology and procedures are probably less important than results. If one agrees with the facts presented, and the reading is productive, then there is a strong tendency to accept the reading even if it was arrived at by flawed methodology or by procedures that would otherwise be considered unacceptable. However, there is often disagreement and differences of opinion regarding the principles of writing systems in general and Maya writing in particular. The question of what kinds of features we should and should not expect to find in Maya writing weighs heavily on standards of evaluation, including the evaluation of the validity and productivity of individual readings. ”The match between glyphs and language From the linguist’s point of view, a major evaluation criterion has to be the fit between epigraphic and linguistic behavior. That is, do the glyphs involved in a proposed decipherment behave the way corresponding units in the languages behave? Is the reading productive in the sense of resulting in other decipherments which also agree with known or suspected linguistic patterns and elements? The linguistic patterns a reading or other decipherment should fit are not those of any modern Mayan language, but are those of the Mayan languages which were spoken by the creators of the inscriptions in particular regions at particular times. Most linguists accept proto- Ch’olan and proto-Yucatecan as the major possibilities, depending on place and time. Our knowledge of these languages is imperfect, and is limited to hypothetical reconstructions (Kaufman and Norman 1984; Bricker 1986), which do not match the written evidence exactly. In addition to hypothetical reconstructions of these ancestral languages, we may use other sources. In descending order of strength as evidence, these include: data from Colonial attestation of Ch’olan and Yucatecan languages, data from modern varieties of Ch’olan and Yucatecan, patterns of Mayan languages in general (especially those of the Western branch, the close relatives of Ch’olan), data from individual Mayan languages, and finally, supposed universals and /or general principles. Some of the features of Mayan languages which could be expected to show up in Maya inscriptions, or which have already been identified, are sketched below. Phonology Maya writing involves a combination of logographic signs, which represent words without particular reference to their phonology, and phonetic signs, which represent syllables, most of the shape CV (consonant-vowel). The most common syllables may be represented by several distinct signs (Stuart 1987). Signs have not been identified for all the possible CV syllables, and it appears likely that either some syllables were not written, or that the writing system had some degree of under- differentiation, so that two or more similar syllables could be written with the same sign. On the other hand, at least some of the syllables for which signs have yet to be identified are rare in most Mayan languages (for instance, those with 80 ¥ and p’), so it is at least possible that further research will result in a complete syllabary. Glottalized versus non-glottalized consonants All Mayan languages distinguish between sets of glottalized and non-glottalized (or “plain”) stops and affricates. Modern Ch’ol, for instance (Josserand and Hopkins 1988), has a phoneme inventory which includes p, , 2, ch, and k (non-glottalized) as well as p’, ”, #2’, ch’ and k’ (glottalized). There is little if any alternation between glottalized and non- glottalized counterparts in morphological processes, and there is no attested pattern of word-play which associates one set with the other. That is, we have no reason to believe that Maya, modern or Classic, could be said to make a mental association between counterparts from the different sets (between p and p’, for instance). There occasionally appears to be evidence in Colonial or modern data for a lack of distinction between glottalized and non-glottalized consonants; for instance, a word may appear to be alternately written with and without glottalization on one of its consonants. Such instances can invariably be accounted for without positing free substitution of glottalized and non-glottalized consonants. Some are the result of an inadequate orthography; variants of the Spanish-introduced Colonial Yucatec orthography do not consistently mark any of the contrasts other than k versus k’, written and , respectively. Some result from scribal or typographical errors (leaving off the apostrophe that marks glottalization). And some are the result of a mistake in interpretation on the part of the investigator (it is not really the same word in both instances). Some confusion may also be introduced by misunderstood morphological processes. In Ch’ol, for instance, CVC adjective roots ending in stops and affricates combine with a derivational suffix -’an to produce verbs with CVC’an forms, where the root-final consonants are glottalized. The adjective root ch’ok ‘budding, emergent’ yields the semantically related verb ch’ok'an ‘to be born’. But this does not imply free alternation of C and C's it is merely a case of an atypical morphological device which results in glottalized and non-glottalized stops in related words. Given the high functional load assigned to the plain/glottalized contrast and the lack of any attested association between the sets on the part of Mayan language speakers, we must greet witha strong degree of skepticism any reading which involves a lack of distinction between glottalized and non-glottalized consonants, to say nothing of the insistence that as a matter of principle there should be no distinction between plain and glottalized consonants in the Classic written language. Certainly such a reductionist proposal is to be proved by evidence rather than simply asserted. Syllable structure and synharmony Mayan languages tend to have syllables of the shapes CV (consonant-vowel) and CVC (consonant-vowel-consonant), which result in some but not many consonant clusters within the word. Likewise, they are usually found to have no vowel-initial or vowel-final forms, although many would argue that this is an artifact of analysis rather than a hard fact of language structure.’ Furthermore, in these languages, most notably those of the Western branch (which includes Ch’olan), closed final syllables, especially those ending in stops and affricates, generally show the aspiration phenomenon known as echo syllables. That is, final closed syllable CVC is followed by an automatic, non- contrastive, voiceless repeat of the last consonant and vowel. Thus, a word like Ch’ol ja’ ‘water’ is pronounced ja'(‘a), with the final [a] voiceless or whispered (Koob 1979). Knorozov (1952, 1965) was apparently ignorant of this fact, but proposed on independent evidence that Mayans wrote final consonants with a syllable sign containing the final consonant and a copy of the last vowel. ‘Thus, a word of the shape CVC would be written CV-CV (Table 1). The final, “synharmonic,” vowel would be deleted automatically, that is, it would be silent, not pronounced. This pattern so closely resembles the phonological pattern observed in modern Mayan languages that Knorozov's hypothesis is very attractive; it has also been extremely productive in terms of readings. Table 1 Syllabic spelling of C, V; Cx: GV CV, Example: k'uk’ ‘quetzal" Epigraphic notation: tu) Reading: Kuk (kU) Ch’ol:K’uk”‘trogon’ Paradoxically, the synharmonic hypothesis is. also supported by the hieroglyphic use of signs representing syllables with non-harmonic high front vowel i after #, an alveolar consonant: pa-ti for pat, mu-ti for mut (Table 2). This pattern was viewed as an exception to the rule of synharmony until it was recognized that the Western Mayan languages, including Ch’ol, have high front vowels as echo vowels after alveolar and alveo-palatal consonants (t, t’, #2, t2’, ch, ch’, n, 5, x). This co-variation between linguistic and epigraphic elements is strong evidence for the validity of the synharmonic principle, and is one of the best examples of match between the behavior of linguistic and epigraphic elements. Table 2 Syllabic spelling of CVt: Example: mut bird, augury* Epigraphic notation: Reading: Ch’ok: mut “bird” Note that the synharmony principle predicts that final written vowels which are the same as the preceding vowel (and the final vowel i after an alveolar or alveo-palatal consonant) are to be ignored. On the other hand, there is no expectation that any other written vowels are to be ignored. Readings which violate the principle of synharmony contradict a well-established principle, and are to be viewed with suspicion. We have a basis in Mayan phonologies for believing that the Maya used syllabic signs with a principle of synharmony, including the use of high front vowels after alveolars and alveo- palatals. We have no basis in Mayan phonology for expecting that other non-harmonic final vowels can be ignored. The working hypothesis has to be that a written non-harmonic final vowel is meaningful. This is not to say that the rule of synharmony is necessarily absolute. There are a number of readings which imply that there are other exceptions to the rule of synharmony, perhaps because the inventory of syllable signs does not always allow perfect synharmonic writing. But it is a mistake in research strategy to assume that synharmony does not exist at all, or that all differences in written final vowels can be ignored, as doa number of recent papers. For instance, Stuart (1987) proposes that the word tz'ib ‘write’ can be written tz*i-bi ortz’i-ba, without distinction, as both forms are found in inscriptions, followed by apparent names in phrases interpreted as authors’ credits. The form atz’i-bi is written synharmonically, and could be expected to be read as t2'ib’ Since the form tzi- ba is not written synharmonically, another analysis should be considered. In modem Chol, the noun ‘writing’ is t2'jb, but the verb ‘to write’ is tz’ijban (incompletive aspect stem), with a completive aspect form t'ijoa the wrote it’. By analogy with these modern forms, the Classic forms may very well be the noun form f2’ib ‘writing’, and the verbal form fz’iba ‘wrote’: u-tz’i-b(i) ‘his writing’ and w-tz’i-ba ‘he wrote it’ (Table 3). It would be very difficult to distinguish between these two meanings in an inscription if the final vowel is ignored, since both would be followed by a name phase, representing the possessor of the noun or agent of the transitive verb. Table 3 Syllabic spellings: tw’ wicba Wwi-b(i) = wi-b(a) = t2"ib Stuart's analysis: ‘write’ Alternative analysis: tz%+b(i) = f2ib ‘writing wwi-ba = f2'iba ‘wrote’ rij ‘writing’ £2 jba(n) to write’ Chol: The advantage of this analysis is that it allows us to preserve the rule of synharmony, which tells us when the final written vowel is to be ignored and when it is not. By not assuming that the final vowel can simply be ignored, we are forced to account for the non-symharmonic forms, and therefore learn (or come to suspect) that both nominal and verbal forms of the Mayan root were used. If we assume from the first that it doesn’t make any difference which vowel is written in the final syllable of a word, we can never discover the potential difference between t2*i-b(i) and tz’i-ba Vowel harmony Apart from the sub-phonemic vowel harmony of the echo syllables, Mayan languages have only limited vowel harmony rules. The vowels of a very few nominal suffixes are governed by the vowels of the root or stem to which they are attached. But Mayan languages do not have the extensive harmony rules of languages like Turkish or Hungarian, in which all the vowels following the root, throughout several successive suffixes, are determined by the root vowel. Likewise Mayan languages in general do not have extensive vowel deletion from affixes, although some vowel loss through 82 syncopation in sequences of affixes may occur. Consequently, proposals which involve the determination of the vowel of one affix by reference to the vowel of another, or which presuppose that some written vowels are to be deleted or ignored in the interpretation of the inscriptional evidence must be taken with a grain of salt (see below, in the discussion of hi). Distributional constraints Consonants and vowels do not suffer severe distributional constraints in Mayan languag That is, there are no sets of consonants which may occur only initially or only finally, nor are there vowels which may not occur next to certain consonants. A given syllabic sign, therefore, should be expected to occur at the beginning, in the middle, and at the end of a word, without restriction. A sign which occurred in only one of these positions would have a defective distribution, and could be expected to group with other signs with which it is in complementary distribution. @ @ Ga Figure 1. The affix T17 (Thompson 1962:40-41, 445). Redrawn from Stuart (1987.25), Stuart (1987) advanced the hypothesis that TI7 (fig. 1) represents the syllable yi, and supported his hypothesis with readings of yila ‘his seeing’ (I would gloss this ‘he saw [it]"), yitz'in ‘his younger brother’ and yich’ak ‘his claw’. The data presented imply that the syllable only occurs in initial position. On the basis of the structure of Mayan languages, we should suspect that yi would also occur outside initial position, and that either T17 or other signs with which it is in complementary distribution would transcribe the syllable yi in final position. T17 itself is common in final position, and there is every reason to believe that suffixed T17 transcribes -i, the completive aspect marker of intransitive verbs, as in various period-ending expressions, the wing-shell ‘death’ expression, and so on (fig. 2). Note that the corresponding suffix in modem Ch’ol, usually cited as -i, has underlying -iy shapes, such as tza chim-iy-O the died’, and za chitm-iy-on ‘I died’. Once again, the principle that Maya writingwill reflect the patterns of Mayan languages provides the motivation for attempting to fill out an observed pattern, and results in greater insight. As a matter of principle, the reading of a syllable like T17, putative yi, should not be proposed unless an attempt has been made to account for occurrences of the sign in all positions. While some limitations in the amount and nature of the data presented to defend an argument may be legitimate, it is obvious that no proposal can be taken seriously if it only attempts to read a sign in a few of its many contexts, and ignores without comment extensive occurrences of the sign in other contexts.‘ In fact, the basic nature of proof in decipherment is to show that a reading derived from one set of contexts makes sense in a series of other contexts. Morphology Mayan roots are basically CVC in shape, with some CVCVC or other disyllabic forms; affixes tend to be CV or VC in shape, and are occasionally CVC. Roots belong to one (sometimes more) of a number of root classes, and these determine which derivational and inflectional affixes will be taken by the root, and in which sort of constructions the derived stems will occur. For instance, it appears that the language of the inscriptions, like Ch’olan and other Western Mayan languages, has three major verb root classes: transitive, intransitive, and positional verb roots. Each root class takes a distinct set of suffixes to mark completive and incompletive aspect, as well as calling for distinct sentence syntax associated with different sets of arguments. Figure 2. Examples of T17 as a suffix indicating completive aspect (past tense) of intransitive verbs Left, it] ended’. Right, ‘and then, he] died’. Note that CVC shapes, if transcribed with phonetic glyphs, would be written disyllabically, CV-C(V), and CVCVC roots would be correspondingly longer, CV-CV-C(V), Since roots characteristically occur with some kind of affixation, even the simplest word, written phonetically, would be several signs long. In fact, it is relatively rare for long strings of phonetic signs to be combined to write whole words. Instead, logographic signs are used to represent even long and complex words with a single sign, although it is common practice to write with a combination of logographic and phonetic signs, that is, logographic main signs with phonetic affixes. It is fortunate for studies of the morphology of the Classic Maya written language that this tendency results in the spelling out of many common affixes. The written language of Classic Maya inscriptions, like modern Mayan languages, has relatively little nominal morphology, compared to verbal morphology. Nouns may be possessed; in the epigraphic record, possession is marked with the ergative third person singular pronoun u-. Sometimes nouns are also marked with -VI suffixes, related to the possessive inflection of certain nominal categories. Verbal inflection is much more extensive. An attempt has been made to collect all or most of the examples of verbs in Classic inscription (Schele 1982), and several critical elements of the verbal morphology have been identified (Bricker 1986, Macri 1988). On the other hand, there are any number of known hieroglyphic affixes whose function is unknown, and much expected Mayan verbal morphology which is as yet unaccounted for in the inscriptions. From what is currently understood, it appears that (contrary to earlier expectations) the morphology of the Classic written language does not exactly match that of proto-Ch’ olan as reconstructed by Kaufman and Norman (1984)! One characteristic of affixes in both the inscriptional evidence and modern Mayan languages is the occurrence in the inventory of sets of two or more affixes which have the same phonological shape, but which may occur in different positions or with different stem classes and have entirely different functions or meaning. Thus, the epigraphic nominal prefix ah- marks agentive nouns, while as a verbal suffix, -ah marks the completive aspect of verbs. On the other hand, as pointed out by Stuart (1987), the same grammatical affix may be spelled out in a variety of ways without changing its function or meaning. It is clear that as far as affixes are concemed, we are dealing not with morphological signs, but with syllabic spellings of morphemes. Syntax and discourse structure The discovery that Mayan inscriptions 8displayed the major patterns of sentence syntax known from Mayan languages has been one of the greatest breakthroughs in the history of Maya epigraphy (Schele 1982:20, and Schele’s Notebooks, 1978-1990). The simple realization that what follows the initial temporal statement (for examples, a Calendar Round) is a verb, and that following the verb comes a noun phrase that functions as the subject or object of that verb, has been the key to deciphering the content of the inscriptions, and has led to the possibility of identifying the grammatical affixes which are attached to the major sentence elements. In fact, the epigraphic Mayan VOS (Verb- Object-Subject) basic word order, like similar elements of modern spoken languages, rarely occurs by itself. Not only is it usually related to a preceding temporal statement, but the sentence often includes a complement or other oblique phrase after the verb (such as a locative phrase), and it is rare to find both subject and object expressed in the same sentence (Josserand 1987). Some more complex syntax has been noted, particularly the conjoining of sentences in related pairs. The development of knowledge about one particular set of sentence conjunctions illustrates the stages of discovery at this level of language structure. The Anterior and Posterior Event (or Date) Indicators were deciphered at the level of interpretation—as relating one statement to another—by an earlier generation of epigraphers (cf. Thompson 1950). Capturing the sense of ‘Thompson's treatment, they were paraphrased as sentence conjunctions by Schele (1978 and later Notebooks). They have recently been identified as markers of background and foreground information in narrative text structures, related to similar elements in modern Ch’ol, and assigned phonological readings (osserand 1987) It is work on the interface of syntax and discourse structure that will result in similar advances in our understanding of other devices of complex syntax. Questions of overall text structure, text segmentation, participant tracking, and other aspects of discourse structure are beginning to yield to analysis (see Bricker, Josserand, and Maxwell, this volume). ‘The basic patterns, at least as far as the monumental corpus is concemed, seem to be similar to those of modem Mayan historical narrative (Hopkins and Josserand 1990). The most fruitful aspect of this kind of analysis is that we are beginning to see the inscriptional texts as literature, not just compilations of historical data. With these 84 remarks in mind, I return to the question of criteria of evaluation by looking in detail at one recently proposed reading. Stuart’s syllable sign hi Stuart (1987) has recently proposed ten new syllabic readings with varying degrees of support. He ranked the ten proposals in order of their strength, and the last syllable sign, the least well supported, is proposed as hi. I agree with Stuart that this is the weakest of his proposals, and as such it provides a good example of the fit—or lack of fit—between epigraphic and linguistic material. Stuart’s proposal groups the variants of three graphic units, T88, T136 and T758b. These are graphically quite distinct (fig. 3, top): a paw- like form (T88), an animal head (1758b), and a line of small loops (T136). The basis for grouping these three sets is the observation that they replace one another as suffixes in a series of identical contexts which, however, Stuart does not decipher (fig. 3, bottom). The phonetic value hi is derived from a pattern of substitution which involves the ‘seating’ glyph (chum) and the suffix T126, which Stuart reads ya (fig. 4). Stuart first observes that the ‘seating’ glyph chum is usually suffixed with -wa-n(i) or -la-h(a), forming the words chum-wan and chum-lah, respectively, two past-tense forms of the verb ‘to be seated’ (fig. 4a.c). He then notes that in clauses linked by Distance Numbers with the ‘seating’ event as the earlier of two events, the ‘seating’ verb is further suffixed with T126, Thompson's Anterior Event Indicator or (AEN), putative ya (fig. 4b,d).° Stuart analyzes T126 in these constructions as a phonetic complement rather than as a syllable sign or morpheme; in his view, T126 occurs only after syllables which have as their vowel, and serves only to “indicate that the i vowel of the preceding syllable is to be pronounced.” Thus, adding T126 to a construction indicates that the preceding vowel is i, and is to be pronounced. But Stuart maintains that the T126 ya itself is not pronounced, or rather it serves as the echo syllable, dropping its vowel @ and merging the remaining y with the i of the preceding syllable. Thus, what is written chum-wa-ni-ya (fig. 4) is interpreted as chum-wa-ni-y(a) and gives chumwani whereas what is written chum-wa-ni is interpreted as chum-wa-n(i) and gives churewan.Figure 3. Stuart's syllable sign hi. Top, the affixes T88 (Thompson 1962:446); 1758 (Thompson 1962:335-359, 455), and T136 (Thompson 1962:53 447). Redrawn from Stuart 1987:42. Bottom, substitution sets presented as evidence by Stuart; ver I columns show occurrence of a particular variant in three different contexts; horizontal rows show substitution of the three variants in a given context. Redrawn from Stuart (1987:43, Fig. 54) Stuart believes that the final vowel i is the aspect marker for ‘perfective’, and is “related to the common perfective suffix -/ on intransitive verbs in both Ch’olan and Yucatecan.”” Since T126 can only follow i, it cannot be suffixed to the past tense form chum-la-h(a), which has no final vowel i (fig. 4c). Therefore, in order to attach T126 ‘perfective’ to chum-la-h(a), the last syllable must be changed to a sign with the vowel i—and with the consonant k of the stem, ergo hi. Instead of ‘chum-la-ha-ya, then, we get chum-la-hi-ya, interpreted as chum-le-hi-yia), and read chumlahi ‘he had sat’ (fig. 4d) The same pattern is reported to occur on the verb ts'ap ‘to plant a post (or stela)’, where the simple past is written ts’a-pa-h(a) (read fs‘apah) and the perfective is ts'apachi-y(a), read ts'apacki. Likewise, in k’anasi, the Ch’olan name for a month usually cited in its Colonial Yucatecan form, Kayab (K’ayab’), the suffix T126 indicates the pronunciation of the final vowel; the construction written k’an-a-si-y(a). Stuart finds additional support for the reading hi in the occasional appearance of putative hi at the end of ch’ah ‘drop of liquid’, wah ‘food’, and Kuxah ‘bitten/hurt’: the written forms ch’a-hi giving ch’ah, wa-hi giving wah, and k*u-xa-hi giving Ruxah, Problems with the hi reading The paragraphs above summarize Stuart's presentation of evidence for the reading hi. In my opinion there are a number of methodological problems raised by this reading 85CHUM-wa-n(i) chumwan he sot CHUM-wa-ni-y(a) chumwani he hod sat CHUM - la -hla) chumlah he sat CHUM-la-hi -yl0) chumlohi he hod sot Figure 4. Inflection of the positional verb chum “to be seated” according to Stuart (1987:42-43). Redrawn from Stuart (1987.43, Fig. 5). which argue for its rejection. Tt is questionable whether the distinct sign groups T88, T136 and T758b are phonetic equivalents. It is clear that they substitute for one another in at least some contexts. But substitution does not imply identity, especially in verbal affixation. One critical factor is whether the substitution changes the meaning of the construction. If substitution does not change the meaning of the construction, then the glyphs might be equivalent. But if substitution does change the meanings, then the glyphs cannot be equivalent. To take a simple example, the various numbers substitute for one another before the day names (for example, we can observe the combinations 1 Ahau, 2 Ahau, 3 Ahau, etc). But the number glyphs are by no means equivalent to one another, since the meaning of the construction changes with each substitution. Patterns of substitution may establish paradigmatic substitution without implying semantic or phonetic equivalence. 86 In the examples presented by Stuart, there is no semantic control; it is unknown whether or not the substitutions correlate with changes in meaning. ‘The evidence is therefore inconclusive. 788, T136, and T758b may be members of the same paradigmatic or syntagmatic class, but they are not necessarily semantically or phonetically identical. ‘A more serious problem with Stuart's reading is that the grammatical constructions said to be written by the glyph combinations are not forms we would expect to occur in proto- Ch’olan, presumably the language represented (since the positional suffix -wan is Ch’olan and is not found in Yucatecan). Stuart takes the suffix i to be ‘perfective’, but this is problematic. First, chum is a positional verb, and in proto-Ch’olan this class of verb did not take the ‘perfective’ (or ‘completive aspect’) suffix -i (Kaufman and Norman 1984). Itis true that by Colonial times, the Chontal language had generalized the use of this suffix toall verb classes, and it does appear in words like chumwani and chumlahi in the Paxbolon papers (Smailus 1975). But this is a Post-Classic Chontal innovation, not a Classic pattern. In Classic Ch’olan the suffixes -toan and -Iah themselves had the function of marking the ‘perfective’ (or ‘completive’) of the positional verbs. The suffixi marked the same aspect, but for intransitive verbs only (Kaufman and Norman 1984:103). The forms chumwan and chumlah are already marked for this aspect (with -wan and -lah), as are ts'apah and K'uxah, transitive verbs which take the aspect marker -ah. In Chontal and Chontal alone, a later innovation generalized the aspect suffix -i to the positional and transitive verbs as well as the intransitive ones, creating the forms like chumwani attested in the Colonial Chontal source. Since the forms chumzani and chumlahi did not occur in the Classic language, they should not have occurred in Classic inscriptions, and any reading based on these forms is suspect. The occasional addition of putative hi to the nouns ch’ah and wah, to write the final consonant, violates the rule of synharmony. This isno problem for Stuart, who has abandoned the tule of synharmony as a guiding principle, but it continues to worry me. Probably most troublesome, Stuart's interpretation of T126 introduces a new and entirely unproductive principle to Maya writing. We are asked to believe that T126, putative ya, is added only to syllables having the vowel i, and that the sole function of T126 is to assure the Pronunciation of this vowel. This is unprecedented in Maya epigraphy. More significantly, it is unproductive. T126 is an extremely common suffix (and frequently occurs as a prefix as well). Are alll its occurrences simply to reinforce a preceding vowel i? How are other final vowels reinforced? Stuart's analysis raises more questions than it answers, and has implications that are simply unacceptable. Finally, the syllable sign hi occurs is a very limited distribution. It is proposed in no contexts other than final or suffix position. This suggests that it is only part of a set of related glyphs as yet unidentified. Conclusion The hi reading proposed by Stuart is contradicted by the evidence he presents in its support. It produces ungrammatical forms. The arguments presented in its favor violate established principles. The reading introduces a new and unproductive principle which is easily refuted. To illustrate the weakness of the proposal, let us suppose that the sign set (188, T136 and 1758b) does in fact form a legitimate group (although that has not been demonstrated), and that it reads not hi but ha. This reading would fit all the examples presented by Stuart, would produce grammatical forms, would violate no established principles, and would introduce no untenable new ones (Table 4; T126 is not interpreted in these examples so as not to introduce extraneous factors): Table 4 ]EPIGRAPHICFORM __LINGUISTICFORM Jchum-la-h(a) -T126chum-lah (1126) ‘he sat, he was seated’ tsta-pa-h(a)-T126 _ts'ap-ah (1126) ‘it was erected" [ch’a-h(a) wa-hia) eu-xa-h(a) ch’ak ‘drop(s)" wah ‘food! Keux-ah ‘it was bitten’ To summarize, the proposed reading hi produces unacceptable results and there is at least one better reading to account for the evidence presented (ha). The proposal that T88, T136 and T758v are hi is unsupported by the evidence, and should be rejected. On the other hand, there appears to be considerable evidence that the proper reading for this substitution set is ha. NOTES 1 The material presented in this paper is based in part on research supported by the National Endowment for the Humanities (RT-20643-86), and bythe National Science Foundation (BNS-8520749, administered by the Institute for Cultural Ecology Of the Tropics). 2 Roots in Mayan languages can generally be divided into those that begin with a consonant other than a glottal stop, and those that do not. ‘The two sets take different inflectional prefixes, for instance Ch’ol tat ‘father’, a-tat ‘your-father’ versus ‘ab ‘hammock’, aw-2b * your-hammock’. ‘The consistent CVC shape of Mayan roots argues for a structural analysis of words like ‘ab ‘hammock’ as roots which begin with a glottal stop, but which lose the glottal stop when prefixed. Alternatively, these roots can be treated as VC vowel-initial Toots which acquire a glottal stop when not prefixed. The choice between these alternatives is determined by the analyst's theoretical and methodological preferences, not by the inherent structure of the languages. A’ similar situation often pertains to initial k and more frequently, to final h 3. In epigraphic notation, such a form is usually 87represented as tz'i-b(i), to indicate that the final vowel is to be ignored. At the very least, the existence of the sign's ‘occurrence in other contexts should be mentioned, if only because few scholars have access to, much less total recall of, the entire corpus. The situation is not unprecedented, since reconstructions of proto-Romance from modern Janguages do not exactly match the forms attested in Classical Latin. In both cases, the modern languages are derived from vernacular dialects, while the Classic written language records the literary forms of the elite. Note ‘that this analysis is distinct from that sed by Josserand (1987), who treats T126 as Broperecnve nope cutc i ‘There is a confusion in terminology resulting from a Jack of standardization in linguistic, and graphic studies. What is commonly cal {hae by epigraphers is usually referred to as completive aspect by linguists, while the igraphers’ pluperfect is the linguists’ perfective TERE Toleeand and Hopkin 1988. Sart uses perfective in the sense of perfective aspect, but the suffix -i he refers to is not perfective, but completive aspect, that is simple past tense (Kaufman and Norman 1984)—although Stuart takes it to mean pluperfect. The suffix in Ch’olan languages which corresponds in meaning to Stuart's perfective is not the completive aspect suffix -i but the perfective aspect suffix -ix (as, Josserandl (1987) reads T126.