Duncan Craig Wrote:
-
> >
> > 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.
>
> Thanks so much for this. I really appreciate your
> input. My copy of Tedlock is so worn that I can't
> determine which edition it is. I know that it must
> be pre 1996, because I've had it much longer than
> that as well as the title of your edition sounding
> more expansive.
> I am still struggling with English, let alone
> Quiche' which seems very alien what with the
> glottal stops and abundant passive endings. In my
> version of the Popul Vuh, and on page 244, Tedlock
> gets into a lengthy discussion of the parallel
> verse structure in which he apeaks of the triplets
> and quatrains of the vertical prose "strongly
> modifies the vertical movement of parallelism."
> Which probably has no bearing on our discussion,
> but I note that it wasn't mentioned at all in your
> post. Apparently, he was at odds with Edmonson as
> the latter presented the PV entirely in couplets.
> I was completely unaware of the idea that there is
> a both horizontal and vertical structure, let
> alone that one modifies the other.

It's hard for me to find passages from page numbers in different editions; If you give me the text that the footnote refers to aditionally this might help.

There are a number of translations of the Popol Vuh. Up to now, the Edmonson (which I have) is the only one that presents the entire Maya text. Unfortunately for someone like me, t was published before the standard rules of orthography were set up and it is hard to compare with later versions. I have some problems with the Tedlock approach which gives a lot of weight to what his Quiche informant, Xiloj, thought words meant. There is a brand new translation by another Quiche linguist Allen J. Christenson. He has a translation to readable English and a second version of a literal word-for-word translation. I just bought the second one today. He agrees with Edmonson about the form being in couplets. I looked at Christenson's version of the passage we have been discussing- but he does not go into the detail Tedlock did on the :measuring" quiche words. I expect that the literal version will be more informative. The Amazon urls are below:
>
[www.amazon.com]

[www.amazon.com]

> >
> >
> > 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.
>
> Of that I am not entirely sure. I leave for
> Hawaii tomorrow, my mother being over there and
> recovering from a bypass, so I want to look into
> that. I'll be going to the Bishop Museum as well
> as the University of Hawaii. So the Mesoamerican
> cord was halved and stretched with no markings?
> And what was it twenty of? Was there a more basic
> unit of measure?

Just as with the Egyptians, there seem to be a lot esoteric theories about the Maya ubit of measurement. I looked various places we have colonial statements about the "kaan" i.e. the k'a'm that we have been talking about. Several times the sources talk about the existence of this cord (also now in Spanish mecate-- used as a land measure also) being about 24 varas. There is uncertainty about what that means. From all the stuff I would say that the length of these cords was around 20 meters (if the vara is 84 cm).
Bernard
>
>
>
> > %%%%%
> > 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.
>
>
> ...or I doubt that there was a Melchizadek in
> Maya. Aren't there a great many Old Testament
> allusions in the Popul Vuh? The Red Sea comes to
> mind.
> >
> >
> > 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
>
> That threw me, too. The linking of the sky cords
> with the whole act of measurement seemed
> out of place because I associated the sky cords
> with the umbilicus and the sacbees. I don't
> recall Schele or Stuart making the association
> with measurement.
> Anyway, thanks a lot for this feedback. I had to
> throw it out there prematurely to show that the
> khipu had analogs and that I wasn't solely relying
> on a literary reference (which sounds kind of new
> agey to begin with).
> >
>