Dennis Tedlock. 1996. Popol Vuh. The Definitive Edition of the Mayan Book of the Dawn of Life and the Glories of Gods and Kings NY: Simon & Schuster.

I though it would be useful for now and perhaps to you in the future to put this in

p. 201. “Words from the Mayan languages of Guatemala, when they appear in italics are written in the new alphabets of the Academia de las Lenguas Maya de Guatemala (1988), except that the vowels have been reduced to the five found in both hieroglyphic texts and early alphabetic documents. With the following exceptions, consonants may be pronounced as in English: j is like Spanish j, with the tongue farther back than for English h; l is like Welsh ll with the tongue forward than for English; and q is like Hebrew qoph, with the tongue farther back than for English k. Two other Mayan sounds are found in English but are spelled differently: tz is like ts in English “bats,” and x is like English sh. The glottal stop, equivalent to tt in the Scottish pronunciation of “bottle,” is indicated by ‘; when it follows a consonant, it is pronounced simultaneously with that consonant. Vowels are approximately like those of Spanish or Italian. Stress is nearly always on the final syllable of a word. In most cases words in italics from Mayan languages outside of Guatemala or from Nahuatl, the language of the Aztecs, retain the orthographies of the sources consulted.
In the Popol Vuh and other early alphabetic documents in Quiche
and other Quichean languages, vowels followed by glottal stops were written aa, ee, ii, oo, uu; in the new spellings these become a’,e’,i’,o’,u’. Among the glottalized consonants, b becomes b’, tt becomes t’, 4h becomes ch’ and 4, becomes tz’. Among k sounds, the plain front variety formerly written c or qu is now k, while the plain back variety formerly written k is now q. The glottalized forms formerly written 4 and 3 are now k’ and q’respectively. And finally, h becomes j, while z and ç become s.”

p. 220 (notes to pp. 63-64) “the fourfold siding, fourfold cornering/ measuring, fourfold staking,/ halving the cord. Stretching the cord/ in the sky, on the earth,/ the four sides, the four corners: “Siding” and “side” are tz’ukuxik [tzucuxic] and tz’uk [tzuk]: TC cites a prior dictionary as giving “side” for tz’uk, which is also the translation suggested by Andres Xiloj: “Cornering” and “corner” translate xukutaxik and xukut; Xiloj uses the latter word in his prayers, saying kaj xukut kaj, kaj xukut ulew, “four corners of sky, four corners of earth,.” The “fourfold stalking” is ukaj che’xik, which he understood to be four sticks or poles driven into the ground at the four corners. The “measuring” is retaxik, literally “its-being measured,” translated on the basis of etaj, “to measure, to mark out” (D, and the reading offered by Xiloj. The unit of measurement in question, still used by the Quiches, is the k’a’m or “cord”, a length of rope about twenty yards (or paces) long. Xiloj was familiar with the phrasing used here, umej k’amaxik [camaxic]. “its-folded cording,” and uyuq k’a’maxik [uyuc camaxic]. “its-stretched cording.” He explained that the “folded” measurement is done with the cord doubled back on itself to have its length, while the “stretched” measurement is done with the cord pulled out to its full length. His reading of k’a’maxik (which has a passive ending) is confirmed by an entry in DB, k’a’maj [caamaah] (with an active ending), “to measure land.” He observed that the PV describes the measurement of sky and earth as if a cornfield were being laid out for cultivation; house and loom construction are also suggested by this passage (B. Tedlock and D. Tedlock 1985). In the Book of Chilam Balam of Chumayel, the measurement of the world is described in terms of twenty footsteps (equal to a cord) that span the twenty day names of the divinatory calendar (Roys 1967: 116-18). The same source refers to a celestial cord (Ibid: 1555); according to Yucatec Mayas living near Valladolid, a cord suspended I the sky once linked Tulum and Coba with Chichen Itza and Uxmal (Tozzer 1907: 153).”
%%%%

From Duncan’s post- quote: “Land division itself is accomplished by using the “ahe”. A cord with measurements punctuated by knots. And here is a curious similarity to another usage three thousand miles to the east. In the Popol Vuh, the Mayan Book of Council, “ah” is the active ending meaning “to measure lands” (Tedlock).”

That is not correct, as you can see, Tedlock says that “k’a’maj” means “to measure land.” The word deriving from two words etaj “to measure” and k’a’m “cord.” This in no way resembles “ahe” (the Quiche j is pronounced like Spanish j and there are 2 glottal stops a sound that I don’t believe exist in Hawaiian). The meaning of the compound word (where the active and the passive endings are not really relevant to the claim of parallelism to Hawaiian) is confirmed by the “folded” measurement of land and the “stretched” measurement of land in both cases “measurement of land” is k’a’maxik “cord” + “measure” in the passive suffix ending.

Just as a check you can see this.

[www.famsi.org]
on line
Allen J. Christensen, (nd) K’iche’-English Dictionary and Guide to Pronunciation of the K’iche’-Maya Alphabet.

p. 35 etaj (v) to measure something
p. 35 etabal k’am string for measuring
P. 51 k’a’m (n) cord, hammock, burlap, vine.
p. 52 k’am cord, string, bird trap
%%%%%%%
Point number two

Nowhere does Tedlock say that the k’a’maxik or k’a’maj have any knots so that, too, is not a parallel to the Hawaiian “ahe”. What is actually more significant is that the length of the “stretched out” cord is the basic Mesoamerican unit = 20. Not the base number for Hawaiian (or Peruvian, for that matter). The reference to the Chilam Balam ties the measurement to this number and to the number of Maya day names. Again, not a Hawaiian resemblance.
%%%%%
point number 3.

This applies to both the reference to the Chilam Balam and to the Tozzer citation. The Chilam Balam of Chumayel should be taken critically and confirmed through other sources. These colonial documents are quite contaminated with Christian beliefs. For example, at the beginning of the passage in question

R.L. Roys. 1967. The Book of Chilam Balam of Chumayel. Norman: U. of Oklahoma Press

p. 116 “Thus it was recorded <by> the first sage, Melchise<dek>,.. .” the note at the foot says “Written Merchise in the Maya text. The presence of an r indicates a European word or name, but it does not follow that it was an r in Spanish. R and l sounded alike to the Maya ear, and in native documents we find the name Melchor written Merchor. We have already seen Bible names piously interpolated in native legends. The last syllable is here supplied by the translator.


Re the Tozzer. Actually, this belief is a modern Maya myth retrospectively applied by them. There is no evidence, from this, that the Maya believed this pre-columbus. I know from my Aztec background that modern some crazy things are attributed to the Aztecs by guides, Chicanos, and natives that we KNOW are wrong because we really know a lot about what pre-Columbian beliefs were among the Aztecs (not true about the Maya.)

Bernard