In that tongue we have uii, air, wind; chiic, breath; which we may bring into relation with gui; and we find guiiebee, wind-and-water cloud (nube con vient y agua). Dr Seler prefers to derive gui from quii, fire, flame, the notion of which is often associated with wind.
It was probably this notion and the fact that the little four-corner ik (?) symbol is sometimes seen in the flame, which caused this authority to believe the symbol denotes “fire,” “flame.” In the manuscript Zapotec vocabulary by E. A. Fuller, “wind” is bii.
Dr Brinton thinks that ni is the radical of nici, to grow, increase, gain life. He says:
Laa, or laala, is a word of many meanings, as warmth, heat, reason, or intelligence. The sense common to all these expressions seems to be that of life, vitality.
The form of the Mexican symbol for the day Ehecatl (wind), shown in plate [LXIV], 34, and also of the mouths of the female figures on plates 26 and 28, Troano Codex, which are emblematic of the storm, appear to be taken from the bird bill. The bird, as is well known, is a wind symbol with many peoples. It has been so esteemed among several tribes of American Indians, and also by peoples of the Old World. As nii or ni signifies “nose, beak, point” in Maya and several cognate dialects, is it not possible that in this is to be found an explanation of the second Zapotec name? In this case, however, we must assume that the term is borrowed, as in this language xi or xie is the term for “nose.” I notice, however, that the name for bird is given as viguini and piguiini. If pi (vi) is a prefix, as seems probable from the word for “hen,” guitii, then we have some ground for believing that the first Zapotec name has the same fundamental idea as the Mexican symbol.
It therefore would seem that it is not difficult to understand the origin of the Mexican symbol. Examining plate 10, Borgian Codex, which appears to represent the home of the winds, we see that, though mostly furnished with human bodies, they have bird claws as well as bills. But the origin of the Maya symbol is more difficult to account for. Dr Seler remarks:
It is difficult to determine the original idea of this character. Figure 210 [our plate [LXIV], 24] and the forms on the reliefs—if we have correctly interpreted these—lead us to think that the wind cross, or the figure of the Tau resulting from it, was the origin of the character. However, the forms of the Cod. Tro. are not easily reconciled with this.
Dr Brinton[219-1] asserts, without heeding Dr Seler’s caution, that it is the sign of the four directions or four winds—the wind cross—evidently alluding to the sharp-corner square seen in our plate [LXVI], 28. But he seems to have overlooked the fact that it is never thus represented in the day symbol. Moreover, no satisfactory proof has been presented showing that this form has this signification. Seler gives it in some places, as above stated, the signification “fire,” “flame;” and if his interpretation of plate [LXVI], 29 by Kinich-kakmo be correct, as Brinton seems to think it is, his interpretations are consistent. However, Seler’s assertion that “the forms of the Cod. Tro. are not easily reconciled with this” must be admitted. In the codices this glyph, as this author remarks, “rather brings to mind the idea of hanging,” often resembling a bunch of grapes.
I take for granted the symbol, when standing for the day, is not pictorial or ideographic, but is adopted for its sound value. If this supposition be correct, then it must be a conventional representation of something the Maya name of which is ik or that has substantially this phonetic value. The form of the Mexican symbol, as above indicated, shows that in selecting it reference was had to the bird bill, to which possibly may have been added the idea of blowing forcibly from the mouth, a common method of indicating wind. (See for example the bird-mouth female, Tro. 25b, where the Ik symbol is present.) But it seems impossible to find in the symbol any reference to the bird, bird bill, or the act of blowing, or in fact anything indicating, even by a conventionalized figure, wind, air, spirit, or breath. Hence it is reasonable to conclude that it has been selected only because of the resemblance in sound of the thing it represents to the name Ik. I would be inclined to believe that the most usual form is the representation of a tooth or two teeth, the name being used for its phonetic value only, but for the very troublesome fact that I can find no name for tooth in Maya to sustain this view. If we could suppose it to be a conventionalized ideogram of an insect, we would obtain the desired sound, as Perez explains ikel by “bicho, insecto, polilla, gorgojo.” It must, however, be confessed that none of these suggestions are satisfactory.