Page:A Study of the Manuscript Troano.djvu/207

Rh letters), using the significations given by Landa, will suffice to convince any one that it is impossible to form the day from the letter characters, even allowing the widest latitude in the representation of sounds.

Take, for example, the character for Muluc, as compared with those for m and l; Ahau, as compared with those for a, h, and u; Kan, as compared with k and n; Chicchan, as compared with c, h, and n; Ezanab, as compared with e, z, n, and b, &c.

But it does not necessarily follow from this that Landa was wholly mistaken. The days may have retained their characters as symbols from more ancient times, before any approach to phonetic elements had been made, and hence might not present any of these elements.

As we find some of these day symbols on the Palenque Tablet, which is probably much older than the Manuscript, we have some foundation for this supposition. Another ground for this supposition is that we have good reason for believing that some at least of these characters are used in the Manuscript and Codex as denoting something quite different from the days they represent, or that which the name of the day signifies.

Notwithstanding this, there are some of the day and month characters in which we can detect, beyond doubt, some of the letter elements, showing them to be to a certain degree at least phonetic. For example, the character for Cauac differs but slightly from that for cu (qu?); Chuen and Tzec