Chapter 2

Nacal in cah, I ascend. Nacal a cah, thou ascendest. Nacal u cah, he ascends. Nacal c cah, we ascend. Nacal a cah ex, you ascend. Nacal u cah ob, they ascend.

When this form is analyzed, we discover that _in_, _a_, _u_, _c_, _a-ex_, _u-ob_, are personal possessive pronouns, my, thy, his, our, your, their; and that _nacal_ and _cah_ are in fact verbal nouns standing in apposition. _Cah_, which is the sign of the present tense, means the doing, making, being occupied or busy at something. Hence _nacal in cah_, I ascend, is literally "the ascent, my being occupied with." The imperfect tense is merely the present with the additional verbal noun _cuchi_ added, as--

Nacal in cah cuchi, I was ascending. Nacal a cah cuchi, Thou wast ascending. etc.

_Cuchi_ means carrying on, bearing along, and the imperfect may thus be rendered:--

"The ascent, my being occupied with, carrying on."

This is what has been called by Friedrich Mueller the "possessive conjugation," the pronoun used being not in the nominative but in the possessive form.

The aorist presents a different mode of formation:--

Nac-en, (i.e. Naci-en) I ascended. Nac-ech, Thou ascended. Naci, He ascended. Nac-on, We ascended. Nac-ex, You ascended. Nac-ob, They ascended.

Here _en_, _ech_, _on_, _ex_, are apparently the simple personal pronouns I, thou, we, you, and are used predicatively. The future is also conjugated in this form by the use of the verbal _bin_, _binel_, to go:

Bin nacac en, I am going to ascend. Bin nacac ech, Thou art going to ascend. etc.

The present of all the active verbs uses this predicative form, while their aorists and futures employ possessive forms. Thus:--

Ten cambezic, I teach him. Tech cambezic, Thou teaches him. Lay cambezic, He teaches him.

Here, however, I must note a difference of opinion between eminent grammatical critics. Friedrich Mueller considers all such forms as--

Nac-en, I ascended,

to exhibit "the predicative power of the true verb," basing his opinion on the analogy of such expressions as--

Ten batab en, I (am) a chief.[31-1]

M. Lucien Adam, on the other hand, says:--"The intransitive preterit _nac-en_ may seem morphologically the same as the Aryan _as-mi_; but here again, _nac_ is a verbal noun, as is demonstrated by the plural of the third person _nac-ob_, 'the ascenders.' _Nac-en_ comes to mean 'ascender [formerly] me.'"[31-2]

I am inclined to think that the French critic is right, and that, in fact, there is no true verb in the Maya, but merely verbal nouns, _nomina actionis_, to which the pronouns stand either in the possessive or objective relations, or, more remotely, in the possessive relation to another verbal noun in apposition, as _cah_, _cuchi_, etc. The importance of this point in estimating the structure of the language will be appreciated by those who have paid any attention to the science of linguistics.

The objective form of the conjugation is composed of the simple personal pronouns of both persons, together with the possessive of the agent and the particle _ci_, which conveys the accessory notion of present action towards. Thus, from _moc_, to tie:--

Ten c in moc ech, I tie thee, literally, I my present tying thee.

These refinements of analysis have, of course, nothing to do with the convenience of the language for practical purposes. As it has no dual, no inclusive and exclusive plurals, no articles nor substantive verb, no transitions, and few irregular verbs, its forms are quickly learned. It is not polysynthetic, at any rate, not more so than French, and its words undergo no such alteration by agglutination as in Aztec and Algonkin. Syncopated forms are indeed common, but to no greater extent than in colloquial English. The unit of the tongue remains the word, not the sentence, and we find no immeasurable words, expressing in themselves a whole paragraph, such as grammarians like to quote from the Eskimo, Aztec, Qquichua and other highly synthetic languages.

The position of words in a sentence is not dissimilar from that in English. The adjective precedes the noun it qualifies, and sentences usually follow the formula, subject--verbal--object. Thus:--

_Hemac cu yacuntic Diose, utz uinic._ He who loves God, [is] good man.

But transposition is allowable, as--

_Taachili u tzicic u yum uinic._ Generally obeys his father, a man.

As shown in this last example, the genitive relation is indicated by the possessive pronoun, as it sometimes was in English, "John, his book;" but the Maya is "his book John," _u huun Juan_.

Another method which is used for indicating the genitive and ablative relations is the termination _il_. This is called "the determinative ending," and denotes whose is the object named, or of what. It is occasionally varied to _al_ and _el_, to correspond to the last preceding vowel, but this "vocalic echo" is not common in Maya. While it denotes use, it does not convey the idea of ownership. Thus, _u c[=h]een in yum_, my father's well, means the well that belongs to my father; but _c[=h]enel in yum_, my father's well, means the well from which he obtains water, but in which he has no proprietorship. Material used is indicated by this ending, as _xanil na_, a house of straw (_xan_, straw, _na_, house).

Compound words are frequent, but except occasional syncope, the members of the compound undergo no change. There is little resembling the incapsulation (_emboitement_) that one sees in most American languages. Thus, midnight, _chumucakab_, is merely a union of _chumuc_, middle, and _akab_, night; dawn, _ahalcab_, is _ahal_, to awaken, _cab_, the world.

While from the above brief sketch it will be seen that the Maya is free from many of the difficulties which present themselves in most American tongues, it is by no means devoid of others.

In its _phonetics_, it possesses six elements which to the Spaniards were new. They are represented by the signs:

c[=h], k, pp, t[=h], tz, [c].

Of these the c[=h] resembles dch, pronounced forcibly; the [c] is as dz; the pp is a forcible double p; and in the t[=h] the two letters are to be pronounced separately and forcibly. There remains the _k_ which is the most difficult of all. It is a sort of palato-guttural, the only one in the language, and its sound can only be acquired by long practice.

The _particles_ are very numerous, and make up the life of the language. By them are expressed the relations of space and time, and all the finer shades of meaning. Probably no one not to the manor born could render correctly their full force. Buenaventura, in his Grammar, enumerates sixteen different significations of the particle _il_.[35-1]

The elliptical and obscure style adopted by most native writers, partly from ignorance of the art of composition, partly because they imitated the mystery in expression affected by their priests, forms a serious obstacle even to those fairly acquainted with the current language. Moreover, the older manuscripts contain both words and forms unfamiliar to a cultivated Yucatecan of to-day.

I must, however, not omit to contradict formally an assertion made by the traveler Waldeck, and often repeated, that the language has undergone such extensive changes that what was written a century ago is unintelligible to a native of to-day. So far is this from the truth that, except for a few obsolete words, the narrative of the Conquest, written more than three hundred years ago, by the chief Pech, which I print in this volume, could be read without much difficulty by any educated native.

Again, as in all languages largely monosyllabic, there are many significations attached to one word, and these often widely different. Thus _kab_ means, a hand; a handle; a branch; sap; an offence; while _cab_ means the world; a country; strength; honey; a hive; sting of an insect; juice of a plant; and, in composition, promptness. It will be readily understood that cases will occur where the context leaves it doubtful which of these meanings is to be chosen.

These _homonyms_ and _paronyms_, as they are called by grammarians, offer a fine field for sciolists in philology, wherein to discover analogies between the Maya and other tongues, and they have been vigorously culled out for that purpose. All such efforts are inconsistent with correct methods in linguistics. The folly of the procedure may be illustrated by comparing the English and the Maya. I suppose no one will pretend that these languages, at any rate in their present modern forms, are related. Yet the following are but a few of the many verbal similarities that could be pointed out:--

MAYA. ENGLISH. bateel, battle. c[=h]ab, to grab, to take. hol, hole. hun, one. lum, loam. pol, poll (head). potum, a pot. pul, to pull, carry. tun, stone.

So with the Latin we could find such similarities as _volah_=volo, _[c]a_=dare, etc.

In fact, no relationship of the Maya linguistic group to any other has been discovered. It contains a number of words borrowed from the Aztec (Nahuatl); and the latter in turn presents many undoubtedly borrowed from the Maya dialects. But this only goes to show that these two great families had long and close relations; and that we already know, from their history, traditions and geographical positions.

Sec. 6. _The Numeral System._

The Mayas had a mathematical turn, and possessed a developed system of numeration. It counted by units and scores; in other words, it was a vigesimal system. The cardinal numbers were:--

Hun, one. Ca, two. Ox, three. Can, four. Ho, five. Uac, six. Uuc, seven. Uaxac, eight. Bolon, nine. Lahun, ten. Buluc, eleven. Lahca, twelve. Oxlahun, thirteen. Canlahun, fourteen. Holhun, fifteen. Uaclahun, sixteen. Uuclahun, seventeen. Uaxaclahun, eighteen. Bolonlahun, nineteen. Hunkal, twenty.

The composition of these numerals from twelve to nineteen inclusive is easily seen. _Lahun_ is apparently a compound of _lah hun_ (sc. _uinic_), "it finishes one (man);" that is, in counting on the fingers. _Lah_ means the end, to end, and also the whole of anything. _Kal_, a score, is literally a fastening together, a shutting up, from the verb _kal_, to shut, to lock, to button up, etc.

From twenty upward, the scores are used:--

Hun tu kal, one to the score, 21. Ca tu kal, two to the score, 22. Ox tu kal, three to the score, 23,

and so on up to

Ca kal, two score, 40.

Above forty, three different methods can be used to continue the numeration.

1. We may continue the same employed between 20 and 40, thus:--

Hun tu cakal, one to two score, 41. Ca tu cakal, two to two score, 42. Ox tu cakal, three to two score, 43,

and so on.

2. The numeral copulative _catac_ can be used, with the numeral particle _tul_; as:--

Cakal catac catul, two score and two, 42. Cakal catac oxtul, two score and three, 43.

3. We may count upon the next score above, as:

Hun tu yoxkal, one on the third score, 41. Ca tu yoxkal, two on the third score, 42. Ox tu yoxkal, three on the third score, 43.

The last mentioned system is that advanced by Father Beltran, and is the only one formally mentioned by him. It has recently been carefully analyzed by Prof. Leon de Rosny, who has shown that it is a consistent vigesimal method.[40-1]

It might be asked, and the question is pertinent, and is left unanswered by Prof. Leon de Rosny, why _hun tu kal_ means "one to the score," and _hun tu can kal_ is translated, "one on the fourth score." This important shade of meaning may be given, I think, by the possessive _u_ which originally belonged in the phrase, but suffered elision. Properly it should be,

Hun tu u can kal.

This seems apparent from other numbers where it has not suffered elision, but merely incorporation, as:--

Hun tu yox kal=hun tu u ox kal, 41. Hu tu yokal=hun tu u ho kal, 81.

This system of numeration, advanced by Beltran, appears to have been adopted by all of the later writers, who may have learned the Maya largely from his Grammar. Thus, in the translation of the Gospel of St. John, published by the Baptist Bible Translation Society, chap. II, v. 20; _Xupan uactuyoxkal hab utial u mental letile kulnaa_, "forty and six years was this temple in building;"[41-1] and in that of the Gospel of St. Luke, said to have been the work of Father Joaquin Ruz, the same system is followed.[41-2]

Nevertheless, Beltran's method has been severely criticised by Don Juan Pio Perez, who ranks among the ablest Yucatecan linguists of this century. He has pronounced it artificial, not in accordance with either the past or present use of the natives themselves, and built up out of an effort to assimilate the Maya to the Latin numeral system.

I give his words in the original, from his unpublished essay on Maya grammar.[42-1]

"Los Indios de Yucatan cuentan por veintenas, que llaman _kal_ y en cierto modo tienen diez y nueve unidades hasta completar la primera veintena que es _hunkal_ aunque en el curso de esta solo se encuentran once numeros simples, pues los nombres de los restantes se forman de los de la primera decena.

"Para contar de una a otra veintena los numeros fraccionarios o las diez y nueve unidades, terminadas por la particula _tul_ o su sincopa _tu_,[42-2] se juntan antepuestas a la veintena espresada; por exemplo, _hunkal_, 20; _huntukal_, 21; _catukal_, 22; y _huntucakal_, 41; _catucakal_, 42; _oxtucankal_, 83; _cantuhokal_, 140, etc.

"El Padre Fr. Beltran de Santa Rosa, como puede verse en su _Arte de Lengua Maya_, formo un sistema distinto a este desde la 2ª veintena hasta la ultima, pues para espresar las unidades entre este y la 3ª veintena pone a esta terminandolas y por consiguiente rebajandole su valor por solo su anteposicion a dichas unidades fraccionarias, y asi para espresar el numero 45 por ejemplo dice _ho tu yoxkal_, cuando _oxkal_ o _yoxkal_ significa 60.

"No se de donde tomo los fundamentos en que se apoya este sistema, quiza en el uso de su tiempo, que no ha llegado hasta este; aunque he visto en varios manuscritos antiguos, que los Indios de entonces como los de ahora, usaban el sistema que indico, y espresaban las unidades integras que numeraban, y para espresar el numero 65 dicen; _Oxkal catac hotul_ u _hotu oxkal_, que usa el Padre Beltran por 45.[43-1]

"Mas el metodo que explico esta apoyado en el uso y aun en el curso que se advierte en la 1ª y 2ª veintena e indican que asi deben continuar las decenas hasta la 20ª y no formar sistemas confusos que por ser mas o menos analogos a la numeracion romana lo juzgaban mas o menos perfectos, porque la consideraban como un tipo a que debia arreglarse cualquiera otra lengua, cuando en ellas todo lo que no este conforme con el uso recibido y corriente, es construir castillos en el aire y hacer reformas que por mas ingeniosas que sean, no pasan de inoficiosas."

In the face of this severe criticism of Father Beltran's system, I cannot explain how it is that in Pio Perez's own Dictionary of the Maya, the numerals above 40 are given according to Beltran's system; and that this was not the work of the editors of that volume (which was published after his death), is shown by an autographic manuscript of his dictionary in my possession, written about 1846,[44-1] in which also the numerals appear in Beltran's form.

Three other manuscript dictionaries in my collection, all composed previous to 1690, affirm the system of Beltran, and I am therefore obliged to believe that it was authentic and current among the natives long before white scholars began to dress up their language in the ill-fitting garments of Aryan grammar.

Proceeding to higher numbers, it is interesting to note that they also proceed on the vigesimal system, although this has not heretofore been distinctly shown. The ancient computation was:

20 units = one _kal_ = 20 20 kal = one _bak_ = 400 20 bak = one _pic_ = 8,000 20 pic = one _calab_ = 160,000 20 calab = one _kinchil_ or _tzotzceh_ = 3,200,000 20 kinchil = one _alau_ = 64,000,000

This ancient system was obscured by the Spaniards using the word _pic_ to mean 1000 and _kinchil_ to mean 1,000,000, instead of their original significations.

The meaning of _kal_, I have already explained to be a fastening together, a package, a bundle. _Bak_, as a verb, is to tie around and around with a network of cords; _pic_ is the old word for the short petticoat worn by the women, which was occasionally used as a sac. If we remember that grains of corn or of cacao were what were generally employed as counters, then we may suppose these were measures of quantity. The word _kal_ (_qal_), in Kiche means a score and also specifically 20 grains of cacao; _bak_ in Cakchiquel means a corn-cob, and as a verb to shell an ear of corn, but I am not clear of any connection between this and the numeral. Other meanings of _bak_ in Maya are "meat" and the _partes pudendas_ of either sex.

_Calab_, seems to be an instrumental form from _cal_, to stuff, to fill full.[45-1] The word _calam_ is used in the sense of excessive, overmuch. In Cakchiquel the phrase _mani hu cala_, not (merely) one _cala_, is synonymous with _mani hu chuvi_, not (merely) one bag or sack, both meaning a countless number.[46-1] In that dialect the specific meaning of _cala_ is 20 loads of cacao beans.[46-2]

The term _tzotzceh_ means deerskin, but for _kinchil_ and _alau_, I have found no satisfactory derivation that does not strain the forms of the word too much. I would, however, suggest one possible connection of meaning.

In _kinchil_, we have the word _kin_, day; in _alau_, the word _u_ month, and in the term for mathematical infinity, _hunhablat_, we find _hun haab_, one year, just as in the related expression, _hunhablazic_, which signifies that which lasts a whole year. If this suggestion is well grounded, then in these highest expressions of quantity (and I am inclined to think that originally _hun hablat_, one _hablat_=20 _alau_) we have applications of the three time periods, the day, the month, and the year, with the figurative sense that the increase of one over the other was as the relative lengths of these different periods.

I think it worth while to go into these etymologies, as they may throw some light on the graphic representation of the numerals in the Maya hieroglyphics. It is quite likely that the figures chosen to represent the different higher units would resemble the objects which their names literally signify. The first nineteen numerals were written by a combination of dots and lines, examples of which we find in abundance in the Codex Troano and other manuscripts. The following explanation of it is from the pen of a native writer in the last century:--

"Yantac thun yetel paiche tu pachob, he hunppel thune hunppel bin haabe, uaix cappele cappel bin haabe, uaix oxppel thuun, ua canppel thuune, canppel binbe, uaix oxppel thuun baixan; he paichee yan yokol xane, ua hunppel paichee, hoppel haab bin; ua cappel paichee lahunppiz bin; uaix hunppel paichee yan yokol xane, ua yan hunppel thuune uacppel bin be; uaix cappel thuune yan yokol paichee uucppel bin be; ua oxppel thuun yan yokole, uaxppel binbe; uaixcanppel thun yan yokole paichee (bolonppel binbe); yanix thun yokol (cappel) paichee buluc piz; uaix cappel thune lahcapiz; ua oxppel thuun, oxlahunpiz."

"They (our ancestors) used (for numerals in their calendars) dots and lines back of them; one dot for one year, two dots for two years, three dots for three, four dots for four, and so on; in addition to these they used a line; one line meant five years, two lines ten years; if one line and above it one dot, six years; if two dots above the line, seven years; if three dots above, eight; if four dots above the line, nine; a dot above two lines, eleven; if two dots, twelve; if three dots, thirteen."[48-1]

The plan of using the numerals in Maya differs somewhat from that in English.

In the first place, they are rarely named without the addition of a _numeral particle_, which is suffixed. These particles indicate the character or class of the objects which are, or are about to be, enumerated. When they are uttered, the hearer at once knows what kind of objects are to be spoken of. Many of them can be traced to a meaning which has a definite application to a class, and they have analogues in European tongues. Thus I may say "seven head of"--and the hearer knows that I am going to speak of cattle, or sheep, or cabbages, or similar objects usually counted by heads. So in Maya _ac_ means a turtle or a turtle shell; hence it is used as a particle in counting canoes, houses, stools, vases, pits, caves, altars, and troughs, and some general appropriateness can be seen; but when it is applied also to cornfields, the analogy seems remote.

Of these numeral particles, not less than _seventy-six_ are given by Beltran, in his Grammar, and he does not exhaust the list. Of these _piz_ and _pel_, both of which mean, single, singly, are used in counting years, and will frequently recur in the annals I present in this volume.

By their aid another method of numeration was in vogue for counting time. For "eighty-one years," they did not say _hutuyokal haab_, but _can kal haab catac hunpel haab_, literally, "four score years and one year." The copulative _catac_ is also used in adding a smaller number to a _bak_, or 400, as for 450, _hun bak catac lahuyoxkal_, "one _bak_ and ten toward the third score." _Catac_ is a compound of _ca tac_, _ca_ meaning "then" or "and," and _tac_, which Dr. Berendt considered to be an irregular future of _talel_, to come, "then will come fifty," but which may be the imperative of _tac_ (_tacah_, _tace_, third conjugation), which means to put something under another, as in the phrase _tac ex che yalan cum_, put you wood under the pot.

It will be seen that the latter method is by addition, the former by subtraction. Another variety of the latter is found in the annals. For instance, "ninety-nine years" is not expressed by _bolonlahutuyokal haab_, nor yet by _cankal haab catac bolonlahunpel haab_, but by _hunpel haab minan ti hokal haab_, "one single year lacking from five score years."

Sec. 7. _The Calendar._

The system of computing time adopted by the Mayas is a subject too extensive to be treated here in detail, but it is indispensable, for the proper understanding of their annals, that the outlines of their chronological scheme be explained.

The year, _haab_, was intended to begin on the day of the transit of the sun by the zenith, and was counted from July 16th. It was divided into eighteen months, _u_ (_u_, month, moon), of twenty days, _kin_ (sun, day, time), each. The days were divided into groups of five, as follows:--

1. _Kan._ 6. _Muluc._ 11. _Ix._ 16. _Cauac._ 2. Chicchan. 7. Oc. 12. Men. 17. Ahau. 3. Cimi. 8. Chuen. 13. Cib. 18. Imix. 4. Manik. 9. Eb. 14. Caban. 19. Ik. 5. Lamat. 10. Ben. 15. E[c]nab. 20. Akbal.

The months, in their order, were:--