Most Maya Glyphs Are Written in Ch′olti′an

Mayan Historical Linguistics in a New Age

“…Other aspects of the grammar of Mayan languages, such as the intertwined systems of deixis, discourse organization and evidentiality, have yet to be adequately described in enough languages to allow for historical treatment. Even with far fewer adequate resources than what are presently available, however, historical research on Mayan languages has generated significant historical analyses and reconstructions of proto‐Mayan lexicon (Kaufman with Justeson 2003), phonology (Fox 1978, Campbell and Kaufman 1990, Brown and Wichmann 2004), morphology – particularly the systems of person marking (Robertson 1982, 1998), tense/aspect/mood (Robertson 1992, Robertson and Law 2009) and voice (Norman and Campbell 1978, Davies and Sam‐Colop 1990, Houston et al 2000, Law et al 2009, Mora‐Marín 2003), and syntax (Smith‐Start 1976, basic word order: England 1991, ergativity: Larsen and Norman 1979), as well as studies of linguistic development in individual branches of the Mayan family: Yukatekan (Hofling 2006, Ola Orie and Bricker 2000, Bricker 1981); Wastekan (Kaufman 1985, Robertson 1993); K’iche’an (Campbell 1977); Mamean (England 1983, Robertson 1987), Tseltalan (Kaufman 1968) and Ch’olan (Justeson 1985, Kaufman and Norman 1984, Wichmann 2002, Robertson and Wichmann 2004, Law et al 2006, Robertson 1998, Quizar and Knowles‐Berry 1988, Mora‐Marín 2009).…”

“…However, in addition to these conservative features, the decipherment revealed linguistic features that appear to be innovations that only effected the eastern branch of Ch’olan, leading to the proposal that the language of the hieroglyphs reflected that later stage of development, rather than reflecting proto‐Ch’olan (Houston et al 2000). Later treatments both for (Law et al 2009) and against (Mora‐Marín 2009) this hypothesis engage in detailed discussions of the history of three grammatical features in the hieroglyphs: a passive marker, an intransitive suffix, and a special transitivizing suffix particular to a root class known as ‘positionals’. Similarly data‐rich historical linguistics debates have been spurred by proposals about tense/aspect (Houston 1997, Robertson et al 2004, Wald 2007), nominalized dependent verbs (functionally relational nouns, called ‘secondary verbs’ in epigraphy jargon –Robertson et al 2004, MacLeod 2004), and spelling conventions (Houston et al 1998; Robertson et al 2007; Lacadena and Wichmann 2004).…”

Discourse in the Longue Durée: A View of Mayan Poetic Inertia

“…Eastern Ch'olan includes three distinct languages, attested at three different time depths: Classic Mayan, the language of ancient hieroglyphic texts, Colonial Ch'olti' Mayan, and modern Ch'orti'. There is some debate about the exact relationship between each of these languages (see Houston et al 2000;Robertson 2004;Wichmann 2002;Mora-Marin 2009;Law et al 2009), but it is clear that all three languages either form a direct line of descent or were close dialects of one another at each stage in history.…”

“…; Robertson ; Wichmann ; Mora‐Marin ; Law et al. ), but it is clear that all three languages either form a direct line of descent or were close dialects of one another at each stage in history.…”

“It Is His Image With Pulque”: Drinks, Gifts, and Political Networking in Classic Maya Texts and Images

“…The most distinguishing feature of the Classic Maya culture is the use of hieroglyphic writing and the underlying lingua franca known as Epigraphic Mayan, Hieroglyphic Mayan, or Classic Ch'olti'an (Houston et al 2000;Kaufman 2002:28-34). There is still some disagreement between several groups of epigraphers and linguists on the precise identification of the language in relation to the Ch'olan family and on the degree of diglossia in different scribal communities (Law et al 2009;Mora-Marín et al 2009;Wichmann 2006). The relative abundance of surviving textual records on monuments and various personal items from this time period sets Classic Maya apart from all other pre-Columbian indigenous cultures because Mayanists sometimes have direct access to the precontact emic representations of time, landscape, history, and sociopolitical organization, which are not affected by the sociopolitical and cultural contexts of the contact with the Spaniards and the colonial transformations.…”