Abstract
This paper addresses one of the open issues in the reconstruction of Proto-Tupi-Guarani (PTG) segmental phonology: The status of the *k -*kʲ opposition. We argue that the contrast is artifactual and that the presumed evidence in favor of PTG *kʲ can be considered as secondary developments of PTG *k in Kayabí, Guarayu, Kagwahiva, Tenetehára, Kamayurá, and Ka’apor. We establish additional facts regarding the structure of PTG and the historical phonology of TG languages, also showing that this finding eliminates the need for an unmotivated split in Pre-PTG history, a problematic feature of current reconstructions of the Proto-Tupian consonant system.
Keywords
Comparative method; Tupi-Guarani languages; Historical phonology
Resumo
Este trabalho tem como objetivo resolver uma das questões em aberto acerca da reconstrução da fonologia do Proto-Tupi-Guarani (PTG): a da existência ou não de um contraste entre uma oclusiva velar simples *k e uma oclusiva velar palatalizada *kʲ. Argumentamos que a evidência que supostamente indicaria a necessidade de reconstruir *kʲ é mais bem explicada por meio de desenvolvimentos secundários de *k em algumas línguas, como o Kayabí, o Kamayurá, o Tenetehára, o Guarayu, o Kagwahiva e o Ka’apor. A análise das correspondências relevantes também estabelece uma série de outros fatos acerca da estrutura do PTG e da fonologia histórica dessas línguas, além de apresentar uma avaliação crítica de algumas das etimologias tradicionalmente tidas como relevantes para a questão do estatuto do contraste *k -*kʲ. Por fim, mostramos que a reconstrução do PTG com *k apenas elimina a necessidade para uma cisão não motivada em nível do Pré-PTG, uma característica problemática de propostas existentes acerca das consoantes do Proto-Tupi. Um apêndice apresenta o conjunto de etimologias utilizadas como dados para a análise apresentada.
Palavras-chave
Método comparativo; Línguas Tupi-Guarani; Fonologia histórica
INTRODUCTION
The goal of this paper is to resolve one of the still open issues in the phonological reconstruction of Proto-Tupi-Guarani (PTG), the shared ancestor of the largest branch of the Tupian language family. I will show that the palatalized velar stop *kj (whose status has been recently called into question; Meira & Drude, 2015Meira, S., & Drude, S. (2015). A summary reconstruction of proto-maweti-guarani segmental phonology. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi. Ciências Humanas, 10(2), 275-296. https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-81222015000200005
https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-81222015000...
, p. 282, fn. 7), can be eliminated from the reconstructed PTG inventory, and the relevant correspondences can be more insightfully analyzed as the result of language specific developments in Kayabí, Kagwahiva, Tenetehára, Guarayu, Kamayurá, and Ka’apor. The paper is organized as follows: After a presentation of the current standing of this question (‘the current view’), I will discuss the segmental correspondences in a representative sample of ten, well-attested TG languages, based on which a PTG plain velar stop *k can be straightforwardly reconstructed. Next, I will show that overlapping correspondences with diverging reflexes in a subset of these languages can be accounted for by invoking language-specific developments of the same PTG *k, with no need for an independent and contrasting PTG velar stop (‘PTG *k and its reflexes’). All the relevant correspondences have been extracted from cognate sets that appear in the Appendix to the paper. In the section entitled ‘some implications’ I briefly discuss how this finding eliminates the need to postulate an unmotivated split of Proto-Tupian **kj into PTG *k and *kj. Finally, the section ‘conclusions’ is devoted to the synthetic presentation of the findings in the paper.
THE CURRENT VIEW
In her overview of the then current understanding of the Tupi-Guarani language family, Jensen (1999, p. 139)Jensen, C. (1999). Tupí-guaraní. In R. M. W. Dixon & A. Aikhenvald (Eds.), The Amazonian languages (pp. 125-163). Cambridge University Press. notes that PTG *kj is reconstructed for three morphemes: *ikjé ‘to enter’, *kjér ‘to sleep’ and *kjé ‘here, near speaker’. According to her, the change in the reconstructed forms - previously uniformly reconstructed with *k - was deemed necessary to account for the Guarayu form *kje ‘sleep’ in Hoeller’s (1932)Hoeller, A. (1932). Diccionario guarayu-castellano. COPNAG. data. The contrast between *kj and *k is reconstructed for PTG by Mello (2000)Mello, A. A. S. (2000). Estudo histórico da família lingüística tupí-guaraní: aspectos fonológicos e lexicais [Doctoral dissertation, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina]. and by Rodrigues (2007)Rodrigues, A. D. (2007). As consoantes do Proto-Tupí. In A. S. A. C. Cabral & A. D. Rodrigues (Eds.), Línguas e culturas Tupí (pp. 167-203). Curt Nimuendajú/LALI/UnB.. Mello (2000)Mello, A. A. S. (2000). Estudo histórico da família lingüística tupí-guaraní: aspectos fonológicos e lexicais [Doctoral dissertation, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina]. reconstructs *kj in *-kjer ‘sleep’ only, while Rodrigues (2007)Rodrigues, A. D. (2007). As consoantes do Proto-Tupí. In A. S. A. C. Cabral & A. D. Rodrigues (Eds.), Línguas e culturas Tupí (pp. 167-203). Curt Nimuendajú/LALI/UnB. has *kj in *-kjer ‘sleep’ and *-ejkje ‘enter’. Cognate sets in languages other than Guarayu would presumably support this proto contrast, such as Kayabí set ‘to sleep’ and se ‘to enter’, and the change *e > i in this context in Parintintin: kir ‘sleep’ and ki ‘here’. Meira and Drude (2015, p. 281)Meira, S., & Drude, S. (2015). A summary reconstruction of proto-maweti-guarani segmental phonology. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi. Ciências Humanas, 10(2), 275-296. https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-81222015000200005
https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-81222015000...
, in a paper focused on the comparison between PTG and its two closest relatives, Awetí and Mawé, note that *kj has an uncertain status at the PTG level, being reconstructed only preceding *e in works such as Mello (2000)Mello, A. A. S. (2000). Estudo histórico da família lingüística tupí-guaraní: aspectos fonológicos e lexicais [Doctoral dissertation, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina]. and Rodrigues (2007)Rodrigues, A. D. (2007). As consoantes do Proto-Tupí. In A. S. A. C. Cabral & A. D. Rodrigues (Eds.), Línguas e culturas Tupí (pp. 167-203). Curt Nimuendajú/LALI/UnB.. The authors offer a convenient summary of the status of the phonological problem:
Mello has only four cases of PTG *ke: *kerap ‘to close’, *keramu ‘to snore’, *purake ‘electric eel’ and *ukeʔi (doubtful) ‘sister/brother-in-law’ (the latter apparently related to Man’s Older Brother). Mello claims that *k and *kj have different reflexes in Siriono, Apiaka, Kayabí, Urubu-Kaapor and (sometimes) Tembe, but, in his data, (a) these languages are all missing in the sets for *kerap and *ukeʔi; (b) only Sirionó occurs in the *keramu cognate set, where it has the same reflex (kenãmu with k) as in *kjet (> ke, also with k); and (c) in *purake, Tembe and Urubu-Kaapor both occur with k (murake, purake), while in *kjet only the Urubu-Kaapor reflex is different (ʃer with ʃ), while the Tembe reflex is simply ker, with the same k as in *purake. There is thus almost no evidence in Mello (2000)Mello, A. A. S. (2000). Estudo histórico da família lingüística tupí-guaraní: aspectos fonológicos e lexicais [Doctoral dissertation, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina]. to support a distinction between PTG *ke and *kje
(Meira & Drude, 2015Meira, S., & Drude, S. (2015). A summary reconstruction of proto-maweti-guarani segmental phonology. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi. Ciências Humanas, 10(2), 275-296. https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-81222015000200005
https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-81222015000... , p. 282, fn. 7).
The situation is, in fact, more difficult for the proponents of this contrast than the Meira and Drude (2015)Meira, S., & Drude, S. (2015). A summary reconstruction of proto-maweti-guarani segmental phonology. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi. Ciências Humanas, 10(2), 275-296. https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-81222015000200005
https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-81222015000...
quote above suggests. First, note that the number of supporting etymologies falls from four to three, once it is recognized that the PTG etymon meaning ‘to snore’, Mello’s (2000, p. 172)Mello, A. A. S. (2000). Estudo histórico da família lingüística tupí-guaraní: aspectos fonológicos e lexicais [Doctoral dissertation, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina]. *keramu ‘roncar’ [to snore], is not independent from the etymon *kjer ‘dormir’ [to sleep] (Mello, 2000Mello, A. A. S. (2000). Estudo histórico da família lingüística tupí-guaraní: aspectos fonológicos e lexicais [Doctoral dissertation, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina]., p. 176), but is likely a reflex of the derivative *ket-amu ‘to snore (while) sleeping’, as shown by Old Guarani aquerambu ‘roncar’ [to snore], ambu ‘ronquido’ [snoring sound], tayaçu apĭîmbu ‘de puerco’ [pig’s snoring sound] (Restivo, 1893Restivo, P. (1893 [1722]). Lexicon Hispano-Guaranicum. Wilhelm Kohlhammer. [1722], p. 482), and Old Tupi Xequerambû ‘roncar, o que dorme’ [to snore, he/she who sleeps], Xeambû ‘roncar o porco’ [to snore, the pig] (Drumond, 1952Drumond, C. (Org.). (1952). Vocabulário na Língua Brasílica (Vol. 1, A-H). Faculdade de Filosofia, Ciências e Letras, Universidade de São Paulo. http://etnolinguistica.wdfiles.com/local--files/biblio%3Adrumond-1952-1953-vlb/VLBrasilica_2edDrumond_1952v1_A-H_OCR.pdf
http://etnolinguistica.wdfiles.com/local...
, p. 108)1
1
The “Vocabulário na Língua Brasílica”, or VLB, is arguably the main lexical source on the Old Tupi language. While the manuscript is dated to 1621, different lines of evidence suggest an earlier date for its original composition, perhaps as early as the mid 16th century (see Lemos Barbosa, 1948). I have used here the 1952 edition by Carlos Drumond.
. As suggested below, the ‘sleep’ and ‘snore’ sets where phonologically segregated in Mello’s (2000)Mello, A. A. S. (2000). Estudo histórico da família lingüística tupí-guaraní: aspectos fonológicos e lexicais [Doctoral dissertation, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina]. reconstruction only because his set for *keramu ‘to snore’ fails to include cognates from some languages such as Kayabí, which, in his view, are critical for reconstructing *kj, while these same languages do contribute witnesses to the ‘sleep’ set. Second, *kenaβ ‘fechar’ [to close] (Mello, 2000Mello, A. A. S. (2000). Estudo histórico da família lingüística tupí-guaraní: aspectos fonológicos e lexicais [Doctoral dissertation, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina]., p. 172) is very doubtful and not clearly reconstructible for PTG (see next section). Third, the supposed Ka’apor reflex ʃer ‘to sleep’ is a non-existent ghost form (more on this below). Fourth, as suggested by Meira and Drude (2015)Meira, S., & Drude, S. (2015). A summary reconstruction of proto-maweti-guarani segmental phonology. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi. Ciências Humanas, 10(2), 275-296. https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-81222015000200005
https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-81222015000...
and demonstrated in the remaining of this paper, the other sets are not problematic at all, pointing to language-specific developments and not to the independent reflexation of a separate PTG segment.
Before proceeding, however, I would like to highlight a generalization about the sound structure of PTG that has not been so far explicitly commented upon, but which is relevant for the evaluation of the issue at hand. This generalization will also provide a background for the synthesis of the current understanding of the putative contrast between *k and *kj.
An examination of all extant proposals on the reconstruction of PTG etyma (Lemle, 1971Lemle, M. (1971). Internal classification of the tupi-guarani linguistic family. In D. Bendor-Samuel (Ed.), Tupi studies I (Summer Institute of Linguistics Publications in Linguistics and Related Fields, Vol. 29, pp. 107-129). Summer Institute of Linguistics.; Schleicher, 1998Schleicher, C. O. (1998). Comparative and internal reconstruction of the tupi-guarani language family [Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin].; Mello, 2000Mello, A. A. S. (2000). Estudo histórico da família lingüística tupí-guaraní: aspectos fonológicos e lexicais [Doctoral dissertation, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina].) reveals that the sequence *ki is not reconstructed, as shown in Table 1, where examples for each of the reconstructed sequences *kv (where v = any vowel) are given for each PTG source2 2 Although PTG reconstructed forms appear in a number of different works (such as Dietrich, 1990; Rodrigues & Dietrich, 1997; Rodrigues, 2007), this table includes forms from studies where the evidence for reconstructed etyma (cognate sets) is presented. Jensen (1984), although an important study, relies essentially on the reconstructions of Lemle (1971). .
As noted by Meira and Drude (2015)Meira, S., & Drude, S. (2015). A summary reconstruction of proto-maweti-guarani segmental phonology. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi. Ciências Humanas, 10(2), 275-296. https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-81222015000200005
https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-81222015000...
, this putative contrast between PTG *k and *kj is attested only in the context of a following *e, which strongly suggests that this palatalization is a secondary effect of the contextual front vowel, the only PTG front vowel that was found in this context. The PTG etyma in Rodrigues and Dietrich (1997, pp. 273-274)Rodrigues, A. D., & Dietrich, W. (1997). On the linguistic relationship between mawé and tupí-guaraní. Diachronica, 14(2), 265-304. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/dia.14.2.04rod
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.14.2.04rod...
which exemplify the contrast are: *ɨkeʔɨr ‘brother of man, younger’, *ɨke ‘side of the body’ vs. *kjer ‘sleep’, *ekje ‘go in’. Mello (2000, pp. 163, 172, 176, 184, 191) gives only *kjer ‘sleep’ for PTG *kj, as opposed to *k in the same context (that is, preceding *e) in the forms for: *keramu ‘to snore’, *oken ‘door’, *ike ‘to enter’, *kenaβ ‘to close’, *purake ‘electric eel’ and *ukeʔi ‘brother/sister-in-law’. Other studies give only *k, as in Lemle (1971)Lemle, M. (1971). Internal classification of the tupi-guarani linguistic family. In D. Bendor-Samuel (Ed.), Tupi studies I (Summer Institute of Linguistics Publications in Linguistics and Related Fields, Vol. 29, pp. 107-129). Summer Institute of Linguistics. and Schleicher (1998)Schleicher, C. O. (1998). Comparative and internal reconstruction of the tupi-guarani language family [Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin]., where *ker ‘sleep’ is the only case of a *ke sequence. Jensen (1999, p. 139)Jensen, C. (1999). Tupí-guaraní. In R. M. W. Dixon & A. Aikhenvald (Eds.), The Amazonian languages (pp. 125-163). Cambridge University Press. presents *ikje ‘enter (to)’, *kjer ‘sleep (to)’ and *kje ‘here, near the speaker’, as putative examples of PTG *kj but does not discuss explicitly the existence of contrasts.
PTG *k AND ITS REFLEXES
We will employ a sample of TG languages for addressing this specific aspect of PTG sound structure. The set of languages compared, given below in Table 2, includes languages for which relatively significant documentation is available, and which comprehensively represent the internal diversity of the family, as indicated by their classification within the two major, extant proposals on the internal classification of TG languages (that of Rodrigues, 1984/1985, later updated in Rodrigues & Cabral, 2002Rodrigues, A. D., & Cabral, A. S. A. C. (2002). Revendo a classificação interna da família tupi-guarani. In A. S. A. C. Cabral & A. D. Rodrigues (Eds.), Línguas indígenas brasileiras (pp. 327-337). UFPA., and that of Michael et al., 2015Michael, L., Chosou-Polydouri, N., Bartolomei, K., Donnelly, E., Meira, S., Wauters, V., & O’Hagan, Z. (2015). A bayesian phylogenetic classification of tupi-guarani. LIAMES: Línguas Indígenas Americanas, 15(2), 193-221. https://doi.org/10.20396/liames.v15i2.8642301
https://doi.org/10.20396/liames.v15i2.86...
)3
3
A third alternative classification is that of Gerardi and Reichert (2021). In terms of the proposed subgroups it does not differ much from the other two, in particular for the lower level clades. The main difference concerns the position of Old Tupi, which appears as ‘non-southern’, or Amazonian TG language in the Gerardi and Reichert (2021) proposal.
.
Position of languages used for reconstruction in each of the existing internal classifications.
The relevant correspondences, identified for the cognate sets featuring in the Appendix to this paper, are given in (1) below. Each correspondence is followed by the semantic glosses that identify the cognate sets featuring the correspondence in question5 5 Note that to limit the discussion to the issue at hand, I have only included correspondence sets for PTG *k in syllable onset position, either in morpheme/word-initial position, or in intervocalic position. PTG admits word-final codas, and *-k is frequently found in this position, though the putative palatalized segment *kj has never been reconstructed in this position. I am also not considering the reflexes of PTG *kw, which is well-supported. .
The correspondence in (I) is the main (identity) correspondence that establishes PTG *k. The correspondences in (II) and (III) are the two correspondences that have been accounted for by postulating a separate PTG segment *kj. These correspondences are not only attested in fewer sets than is the case with (I), but as noted above, also happen to be contextually very limited, and occur in contexts that are complementary to those of the identity correspondence (I). The identity correspondence for *k is attested in a variety of vocalic contexts: initially preceding u (Woman) and ɨ (Knife); medially between e_ũ (Tongue), a_u (Hot), u_u (Long), a_a (Cayman), a_ã (Head), e_a (Look for), o_õ (Swallow), a_ɨ̃ (Wet), u_a (Kill), u_ɨ (Salt) and (ɨ)_o (Dig). The three etymologies that support correspondences (II) and (III) show the presumed reflexes of PTG *k in a single context: that of a following *e, as shown in Table 3, where the most important reflexes are highlighted by cell shading.
Correspondences (II) and (III) are jointly distinct from (I) due to a series of ‘palatal’ reflexes in Tenetehára, Kayabí, Kamayurá, Guarayu and Ka’apor. Given the complementary distribution of these correspondences, both (II) and (III) are best reconstructed as reflecting *k, just like (I), with special, context-specific developments taking place in the diverging languages. Note that the two upper rows in the table show that *ɨke ‘side of the body’, which has never been reconstructed with *kj, shows, nevertheless, the same reflexes as *-kjer ‘sleep’, which is reconstructed with PTG *kj in every study that recognizes the distinction. If *k is reconstructed in all these cases, the following developments are implied for each of the five languages:
For Kayabí, a search through Weiss’ (2005)Weiss, H. E. (2005). Dicionário Kayabí-português. Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL). dictionary reveals that ke is an unattested sequence, which supports the regular operation of *k > s /_*e. Note that in ‘side of the body’, which is not reconstructed with *kj in the extant literature, Kayabí has *k > s, exactly as it does in the cases of ‘sleep’ and ‘enter’, both of which are usually reconstructed as having *kj (see section ‘the current view’). This shows that Kayabí offers no evidence for the recognition of two distinct PTG velar stops.
The facts of Guarayu are the same as those of Kayabí, although the languages have phonetically distinct reflexes for *ke. Jensen (1999, p. 139)Jensen, C. (1999). Tupí-guaraní. In R. M. W. Dixon & A. Aikhenvald (Eds.), The Amazonian languages (pp. 125-163). Cambridge University Press. claims that the postulation of PTG *kj was motivated, in part, by the existence of kje in Alfred Hoeller’s data on Guarayu. The problem is that there is no ke in Guarayu and that all cases of PTG *ke show up as kje in the language (cf. ìquie ‘die Seite des menschlichen Körpers’; aquie ‘Ich schlafe, ruhe’; aiquie ‘Ich trete ein’; Hoeller, 1932Hoeller, A. (1932). Diccionario guarayu-castellano. COPNAG., pp. 90, 102, 210). A search in Danielsen et al. (2019)Danielsen, S., Sell, L., & Terhart, L. (2019). Guarayu. A revised dictionary by Alfred Hoeller. Dictionaria, 7, 1-3590. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4675101
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4675101...
shows that in all cases where their data has ke, the same form in the Hoeller (1932)Hoeller, A. (1932). Diccionario guarayu-castellano. COPNAG. materials has kj <quie>. It seems that ke → [kj] is a purely allophonic process in Hoeller’s Guarayu, one that affects the pronunciation of loanwords too, as in kesu ‘cheese’ (< Spanish queso), where Hoeller (1929Hoeller, A. (1929). Diccionario Guarayo-Castellano. Ms., p. 88, quoted in Danielsen et al., 2019Danielsen, S., Sell, L., & Terhart, L. (2019). Guarayu. A revised dictionary by Alfred Hoeller. Dictionaria, 7, 1-3590. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4675101
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4675101...
) registers a variant <quiezu> ‘Käse’. There is no obstacle then for the postulation of *ke > kje in the language, with the implication that Guarayu kj offers no evidence whatsoever for the postulation of a separate PTG proto-segment6
6
The same considerations apply to Guarayu quie ‘wo, irgendwo, wohin, irgendwohin’ (Hoeller, 1932, p. 210), which is sometimes offered as evidence for PTG *kje ‘here, near the speaker’ (Jensen, 1999, p. 139). Note, though, that Jensen (1998, p. 550) gives *ké ‘here, near the speaker’. The reconstruction of the PTG system of demonstratives raises more complex issues than those tackled here and will not be further discussed in this contribution.
.
For Kamayurá, *k > ts /*i_*e only within morphemes, which makes it difficult for assessing the regularity of the development since the environment is very specific. There does not seem to be any other currently reconstructible PTG morpheme, other than *-ike ‘to enter’, where a sequence *-ike- is found. That the development did not take place inter-morphemically is shown by the fact that Kamayurá -ket ‘to sleep’, when prefixed with the Set II third person marker i-, retains the velar stop as such (see Seki, 2000Seki, L. (2000). Gramática do kamayurá. Editora da Unicamp., p. 343, for an example). This restriction to tautomorphemic contexts does not seem to be unique in the family, as noted below for Tenetehára, and it is active even in languages where the effect is simply variation in the existence or not of secondary palatalization k → [kj]. This seems to be the case of Old Guarani, where optional palatalization takes place in the reflex of *-ike ‘to enter’ (cf. e.g., yque ~ quié ‘entrar’ [to enter], aiquie ‘yo entro’ [I enter], Teiquîe ~ teique ‘entrar’ [entry]; Montoya, 1639Montoya, A. R. (1639). Tesoro de la lengua guarani. Juan Sanchez., p. 376), but not in the reflex of *-ket ‘I sleep’, when it is preceded by the Set III7 7 PTG is reconstructed with four sets of person-indexing prefixes. Set III markers are coreferential markers that are more commonly found in certain complement clauses featuring either positional verbs (a closed class of verbs specifying the spatial position of the subject while it participates in the event of the main clause) or in so-called ‘gerund’ constructions, where they signal a co-reference between the dependent (gerund) subject and the main clause subject. See Jensen (1998, 1999) for details. first person singular prefix wi- (cf. aque ‘yo duermo’ [I sleep], but: guiquebo; Montoya, 1639Montoya, A. R. (1639). Tesoro de la lengua guarani. Juan Sanchez., p. 330).
For Tenetehára, Jensen (1999, p. 139)Jensen, C. (1999). Tupí-guaraní. In R. M. W. Dixon & A. Aikhenvald (Eds.), The Amazonian languages (pp. 125-163). Cambridge University Press. argues that the medial affricate in -iʧe ‘to enter’ must be a reflex of *kj, and not a contextual, palatalized reflex of *k conditioned by the preceding *i. As evidence for this claim she cites the diachronic correspondence ikó < *-ikó ‘to be in motion’, which would be evidence that *i had no general palatalizing effect upon a following *k in Tenetehára. Note, however, that the two cases are not entirely comparable, and that the palatalization *k > ʧ in Tenetehára could have applied only when preceded by *i and followed by *e, thus making the existence of -ikó in the modern language unsurprising. Moreover, it is not clear what the source for this presumed form -iko in Tenetehára is. While often given as a separate entry, for instance, as iko ‘morar, viver, ser, estar’ [dwell, live, be, stay] (Boudin, 1978Boudin, M. (1978). Dicionário de tupí moderno: dialeto tupí-tenetehár do Alto Gurupí. Conselho Editorial de Artes e Ciências Humanas de São Paulo., p. 73), the -i in this case results from diphthong formation whenever a preceding prefix vowel is added (as a-iko ‘eu moro’ [I dwell], u-iko ‘êle está’ [he is] (Boudin, 1978Boudin, M. (1978). Dicionário de tupí moderno: dialeto tupí-tenetehár do Alto Gurupí. Conselho Editorial de Artes e Ciências Humanas de São Paulo., p. 73), and it reflects, in fact, an underlying e, which is present when no preceding vowel occurs, as in the third person form hêkó- (Boudin, 1978Boudin, M. (1978). Dicionário de tupí moderno: dialeto tupí-tenetehár do Alto Gurupí. Conselho Editorial de Artes e Ciências Humanas de São Paulo., p. 60). Although the verb in question does have a third person ikó, rather than -ekó, when used as a positional auxiliary, this fact carries no weight in rehabilitating Jensen’s proposal. As noted by Bendor-Samuel (1972, p. 130)Bendor-Samuel, J. (1972). Hierarchical structures in Guajajara (Summer Institute of Linguistics Publications, 37). SIL/University of Oklahoma. for the Guajajára dialect of Tenetehára, the verb ikó has a third person i- in this function, and it is not implausible that the apparently root-initial i- in this case is just the third person prefix in question (that is: *i-eko > iko). Finally, see that, as in Kamayurá and Old Guarani, palatalization of *-ke by a preceding *i occurs only morpheme-internally.
The more attentive reader may have noticed yet another development possibly tied to the reflexation of PTG *k. The Kagwahiva forms in Table 3 display a diachronic correspondence *e > i for the vowel following *k8 8 The conclusion that Kagwahiva ki sequences are necessarily derived can also be arrived at given the fact (see ‘the current view’) that PTG had no *ki sequence (and *ki is likewise not reconstructed for Proto-Maweti-Guarani; see Meira & Drude, 2015). . Jensen (1999, p. 139)Jensen, C. (1999). Tupí-guaraní. In R. M. W. Dixon & A. Aikhenvald (Eds.), The Amazonian languages (pp. 125-163). Cambridge University Press. appeals to this Kagwahiva development *e > i as evidence for the presence of an earlier secondary palatalization in the preceding *k, that is, as evidence for *kj. However, Kagwahiva shows *ki both in sets that have been analyzed in the literature as evidence for PTG *kje, such as ‘sleep’, and in sets that have been reconstructed as *ke, such as ‘side of the body’, and thus offers no evidence whatsoever of separate and contrasting reflexes (see the etymologies in the Appendix). It is likely that PTG *ke [kje] > ki in Kagwahiva, with the precursor phonetic palatalization of *k preceding *e being not only phonetically natural but attested elsewhere in family, as noted above for Guarayu. Further evidence for this intermediate stage with phonetic palatalization [kje] as a condition for the change is the independent evidence for *e > i in the context of a preceding palatal approximant *j, as in -nhi’ig̃ ‘speak’ (Betts, 2012Betts, L. (2012). Kagwahiva dictionary. Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL)., p. 188), from PTG *-jeʔẽŋ ‘to speak’ (Schleicher, 1998Schleicher, C. O. (1998). Comparative and internal reconstruction of the tupi-guarani language family [Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin]., p. 352), -kyhyij ‘afraid’ (Betts, 2012Betts, L. (2012). Kagwahiva dictionary. Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL)., p. 156) < *ʧɨkɨje ‘fear’ (Schleicher, 1998Schleicher, C. O. (1998). Comparative and internal reconstruction of the tupi-guarani language family [Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin]., p. 341) ‘fear’ and in the reflexive prefix ji- (Betts, 2012Betts, L. (2012). Kagwahiva dictionary. Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL)., p. 121) < *je- ‘reflexive’ (Jensen, 1998Jensen, C. (1998). Comparative tupí-guaraní morphosyntax. In D. Derbyshire & G. K. Pullum (Eds.), Handbook of Amazonian languages (Vol. 4, pp. 487-618). Mouton de Gruyter., pp. 515-516)9 9 This suggests that je sequences in Kagwahiva have an independent, a later origin, in Kagwahiva, and this is supported by an analysis of known cases, such as -jehe’o ‘cry’ (Betts, 2012, p. 120) < *-jatseʔo ‘to cry’ (Mello, 2000, p. 166). .
Correspondence (IV) differs from the identity correspondence (I) only in the Ka’apor reflex ʃ alternating with k. As noted in Meira and Drude (2015)Meira, S., & Drude, S. (2015). A summary reconstruction of proto-maweti-guarani segmental phonology. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi. Ciências Humanas, 10(2), 275-296. https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-81222015000200005
https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-81222015000...
quote in the section ‘the current view’, Ka’apor ʃ has been suggested as this language’s reflex for the presumed PTG *kj, in contrast to *k > k. Any discussion of the potential evidence offered by Ka’apor reflexes for the reconstruction of PTG *kj must consider a well-known innovation specific to Ka’apor which consists of the palatalization of *k to ʃ when preceded by *i (Silva, 1997Silva, B. C. C. (1997). Urubu-Ka’apor: da gramática a história [Masther thesis, Universidade de Brasília]., pp. 49-50; Jensen, 1999Jensen, C. (1999). Tupí-guaraní. In R. M. W. Dixon & A. Aikhenvald (Eds.), The Amazonian languages (pp. 125-163). Cambridge University Press., pp. 139-140). This produces alternations in the case of *k-initial PTG roots/stems, which show ʃ in their third person forms alternating with k- elsewhere in their paradigms. Table 4 presents diachronic correspondences between PTG nouns and their reflexes in Ka’apor, illustrating the effects of the Set II *i- prefix on the initial *k-.
Mello (2000, pp. 257-313)Mello, A. A. S. (2000). Estudo histórico da família lingüística tupí-guaraní: aspectos fonológicos e lexicais [Doctoral dissertation, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina]. gives two cases where Ka’apor would have a ʃ reflex for a PTG velar stop, one in the reflex for his PTG *kjer ‘sleep’ and the other in the set for PTG *kɨʔa ‘dirty’10 10 A fact which is exemplary of the many inconsistencies in Mello’s data and analysis is the fact that, while Ka’apor ʃ takes him to reconstruct *kj in the case of ‘sleep’, this is not so in the set for ‘dirty’, even though both are presented as evidence for a Ka’apor *kj > ʃ change (see Mello, 2000, p. 128). . First, note that the claim that Ka’apor has ʃ as a reflex of PTG *k in the form for ‘sleep’, as in the Mello (2000, p. 176)Mello, A. A. S. (2000). Estudo histórico da família lingüística tupí-guaraní: aspectos fonológicos e lexicais [Doctoral dissertation, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina]. etymology for his PTG *kjer ‘sleep’, is factually incorrect: The form attested is -ker, as in u-ker ‘ele dorme’ [he sleeps] (Kakumasu & Kakumasu, 2007Kakumasu, J., & Kakumasu, K. (2007). Dicionário por tópicos Kaapor-Português. Associação Internacional de Linguística (SIL)., p. 141). In agreement with the development PTG *i-k- > i-ʃ-, what Ka’apor does have is a derivative of -ker ‘to sleep’ which shows the expected palatalization when preceded by the Set II third person prefix i-: i-ʃerai ‘ele sonha’ [he dreams], as opposed to ihẽ kerai ‘eu sonho’ [I dream] (Kakumasu & Kakumasu, 2007Kakumasu, J., & Kakumasu, K. (2007). Dicionário por tópicos Kaapor-Português. Associação Internacional de Linguística (SIL)., p. 193). It is possible that Mello (2000)Mello, A. A. S. (2000). Estudo histórico da família lingüística tupí-guaraní: aspectos fonológicos e lexicais [Doctoral dissertation, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina]. has incorrectly coded the form for ‘dream’ in the ‘sleep’ set, but one cannot be sure about it, as the cognates in Mello’s (2000) etymologies are not sourced. For the set for ‘dirty’, the existence of the third person ʃiʔa ‘it is dirty’ (Kakumasu & Kakumasu, 2007Kakumasu, J., & Kakumasu, K. (2007). Dicionário por tópicos Kaapor-Português. Associação Internacional de Linguística (SIL)., p. 43) suggests an error in the same direction. Therefore, the supposed evidence for PTG *kj in the form of a Ka’apor reflex ʃ in the set for ‘to sleep’ (see section ‘the current view’) is non-existent. Finally, see that in correspondence (III) the reflex of PTG *-ike ‘to enter’ has the expected ʃ reflex in Ka’apor for medial *-k-.
Two etymologies call for separate discussion since they apparently breach the pattern of complementary distribution observed for the correspondences (I) and (II-III). These are the terms for ‘husband’s sister’ and ‘elder brother’, which were included in correspondence (I) in (1). The two involve etyma with *ke sequences, just like the sets for correspondences (II) and (III) (see Table 3). However, the recognition of sporadic and language-specific developments, in addition to missing forms (due either to poor documentation or actual lexical replacement), allow one to account for this exceptionality without invoking an additional PTG proto-segment. The relevant cognate sets appear in Table 5, again with cell shading highlighting the most noteworthy data.
The Kayabí reflexes are the first to strike the eye: The expected reflex of PTG *ke in the language is se, not ki. For PTG *-ukeʔi ‘husband’s sister’ (see Carvalho & Birchall, 2022Carvalho, F. O., & Birchall, J. (2022). A comparative reconstruction of Proto-Tupi-Guarani kinship terminology. LIAMES, 22, e022001. http://doi.org/10.20396/liames.v22i00.8666489
https://doi.org/10.20396/liames.v22i00.8...
), one finds a Kayabí form -ukiʔi ‘cunhada da mulher’ [woman’s sister-in-law] (Weiss, 2005Weiss, H. E. (2005). Dicionário Kayabí-português. Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL)., p. 109). The Kayabí have, however, in historical times, lived in a region geographically close to that of the Kagwahiva, in the Upper Tapajós river, with which they display cultural and historical affinities (Aguilar, 2017Aguilar, A. M. G. C. (2017). Kawahíwa como uma unidade linguística. Revista Brasileira de Linguística Antropológica, 9(1), 139-161. https://doi.org/10.26512/rbla.v9i1.19529
https://doi.org/10.26512/rbla.v9i1.19529...
; Menendez, 1989Menendez, M. A. (1989). Os Kawahiva: uma contribuição para os estudos dos Tupi Centrais [Doctoral dissertation, Universidade de São Paulo]., pp. 6-7). Since the development *ke > ki evidenced by the Kayabí form is a regular Kagwahiva development, the best explanation, for the moment, is that Kayabí -ukiʔi is a Kagwahiva loan, even though the form seems to have been lost in Kagwahiva itself.
The same unexpected sequence ki is again attested in the Kayabí reflex of *-t-ɨket-ʔɨt ‘elder brother’. In this case, however, Kayabí, Wajãpi and Kagwahiva show a sporadic vowel metathesis: *-t-ɨket-ʔɨt > KAY -reki-ʔɨt: WAJ -lɛkɨʔɨ: KAG -rekɨʔɨr. Although sporadic, metathesis is not unparalleled within TG, having targeted at least two other etyma: *-kɨpɨ-ʔɨt ‘younger sister, female Ego’, which has a reflex pɨkɨ-ʔɨt in some languages (Carvalho & Birchall, 2022Carvalho, F. O., & Birchall, J. (2022). A comparative reconstruction of Proto-Tupi-Guarani kinship terminology. LIAMES, 22, e022001. http://doi.org/10.20396/liames.v22i00.8666489
https://doi.org/10.20396/liames.v22i00.8...
), and *tsɨkɨje ‘to fear’, with reflexes such as Kaiowá kɨhɨje (adapted from Schleicher, 1998Schleicher, C. O. (1998). Comparative and internal reconstruction of the tupi-guarani language family [Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin]., p. 341; see the etymologies in the Appendix of the present paper for comments on this particular etymon).
As noted in the section ‘the current view’, there are four cognate sets that are usually addressed in discussions of the issue of PTG *kj, but that have not been discussed here so far: ‘electric eel’, ‘door’, ‘to close’ and ‘to snore’. Since these are offered as cases of (non-controversial) PTG *ke, they will not add any evidence for reconstructing *kj and, for this reason, they will be only briefly discussed here.
PTG *keramu ‘to snore’ (e.g., Mello, 2000Mello, A. A. S. (2000). Estudo histórico da família lingüística tupí-guaraní: aspectos fonológicos e lexicais [Doctoral dissertation, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina]., p. 172) is, as noted before, a derivative of *-ket ‘to sleep’. Inspection of the relevant etymology in the Appendix reveals that the reflexation of *k in this set is identical to that of *-ket, and hence, offers no evidence for a separate reflex. One can only speculate on the reasons that have led Mello (2000)Mello, A. A. S. (2000). Estudo histórico da família lingüística tupí-guaraní: aspectos fonológicos e lexicais [Doctoral dissertation, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina]. to reconstruct an apparent contrast in the initial stops of *keramu ‘roncar’ [to snore] (Mello, 2000Mello, A. A. S. (2000). Estudo histórico da família lingüística tupí-guaraní: aspectos fonológicos e lexicais [Doctoral dissertation, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina]., p. 172) and *kjer ‘dormir’ [to sleep] (Mello, 2000Mello, A. A. S. (2000). Estudo histórico da família lingüística tupí-guaraní: aspectos fonológicos e lexicais [Doctoral dissertation, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina]., p. 176), though the lack of a Kayabí cognate for in the former set, versus the Kayabí cognate with s- in the latter, have mislead him into recognizing two separate correspondences.
The three other sets, although often reconstructed for PTG, have distributional problems, and these will be addressed here for the sake of completeness. They have not been included in the etymologies featuring in the Appendix. A form like *oken is often reconstructed for the meaning ‘door’ in PTG (Rodrigues & Dietrich 1997Rodrigues, A. D., & Dietrich, W. (1997). On the linguistic relationship between mawé and tupí-guaraní. Diachronica, 14(2), 265-304. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/dia.14.2.04rod
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.14.2.04rod...
, p. 273; Mello, 2000Mello, A. A. S. (2000). Estudo histórico da família lingüística tupí-guaraní: aspectos fonológicos e lexicais [Doctoral dissertation, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina]., p. 184; Meira & Drude, 2015Meira, S., & Drude, S. (2015). A summary reconstruction of proto-maweti-guarani segmental phonology. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi. Ciências Humanas, 10(2), 275-296. https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-81222015000200005
https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-81222015000...
, p. 292), though the cognates are restricted to Old Tupi Oquẽna ‘porta’ [door] (Drumond, 1953Drumond, C. (Org.). (1953). Vocabulário na Língua Brasílica (Vol. 2, I-Z). Faculdade de Filosofia, Ciências e Letras, Universidade de São Paulo. http://etnolinguistica.wdfiles.com/local--files/biblio%3Adrumond-1952-1953-vlb/VLBrasilica_2edDrumond_1953v2_I-Z_OCR.pdf
http://etnolinguistica.wdfiles.com/local...
, p. 83), Tenetehára uken ‘porta’ [door] (Harrison & Harrison, 2013Harrison, C., & Harrison, C. (2013). Dicionário Guajajara-Português. Associação Internacional de Linguística (SIL)., p. 157), Guarayu oquienda ‘die Türe’ [the door] (Hoeller, 1932Hoeller, A. (1932). Diccionario guarayu-castellano. COPNAG., p. 159), Old Guarani oquȇna ‘puerta’ [door] (Restivo, 1893Restivo, P. (1893 [1722]). Lexicon Hispano-Guaranicum. Wilhelm Kohlhammer. [1722], p. 455) and Ka’apor huken ~ hukwen ‘porta’ [door] (Kakumasu & Kakumasu, 2007Kakumasu, J., & Kakumasu, K. (2007). Dicionário por tópicos Kaapor-Português. Associação Internacional de Linguística (SIL)., p. 96). That is, the form seems essentially restricted to the non-Amazonian TG languages and to languages that are, in some internal classifications of TG languages, suggested as having a rather close relation to Old Tupi: Tenetehára and Ka’apor (see e.g., Michael et al., 2015Michael, L., Chosou-Polydouri, N., Bartolomei, K., Donnelly, E., Meira, S., Wauters, V., & O’Hagan, Z. (2015). A bayesian phylogenetic classification of tupi-guarani. LIAMES: Línguas Indígenas Americanas, 15(2), 193-221. https://doi.org/10.20396/liames.v15i2.8642301
https://doi.org/10.20396/liames.v15i2.86...
; Gerardi & Reichert, 2021Gerardi, F., & Reichert, S. (2021). The Tupi-Guarani language family. Diachronica, 38(2), 151-188. https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.18032.fer
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.18032.fer...
). Quite telling is the absence of a cognate in Kayabí (-‘okwat ‘porta’ [door] – Weiss, 2005Weiss, H. E. (2005). Dicionário Kayabí-português. Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL)., p. 165) and in the Kagwahiva lects (where an extension of -juru ‘mouth’, or, like Kayabí, of -kwat ‘hole’, is used instead; see Betts, 2012Betts, L. (2012). Kagwahiva dictionary. Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL)., p. 125)11
11
This seems like a noteworthy gap in view of the common, if implicit, practice in comparative TG linguistics of accepting, as a criterion of minimal distributional strength for etymologies, the presence of cognates from one of the westernmost Amazonian TG languages, like Kayabí and Kagwahiva, in addition to cognates from the better attested southern languages like Old Tupi and one or more of the Guaranian lects. It is not difficult to find, say, in Lemle (1971) or Schleicher (1998), cognate sets which have been accepted on such grounds, even though the total number of comparanda in the sets is limited to three or four. This seems to rely implicitly on a perception that the great geographic distance between these languages virtually guarantees that a given comparison reflects, in fact, a PTG etymon.
. Although consideration of a larger sample of languages (cf. Xingu Asurini ukina ‘porta’ [door], Pereira, 2009Pereira, A. (2009). Estudo morfossintático do Asurini do Xingu [Doctoral dissertation, Universidade de Campinas]., p. 85) and of external, non-TG evidence (Meira & Drude, 2015Meira, S., & Drude, S. (2015). A summary reconstruction of proto-maweti-guarani segmental phonology. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi. Ciências Humanas, 10(2), 275-296. https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-81222015000200005
https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-81222015000...
, p. 292) make a PTG provenance for this set virtually safe, it offers no other insight on the reconstruction of the *kj-k contrast.
As noted before (‘the current view’), *purake ‘poraquê’ (Mello, 2000Mello, A. A. S. (2000). Estudo histórico da família lingüística tupí-guaraní: aspectos fonológicos e lexicais [Doctoral dissertation, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina]., p. 191), the name of a kind of fish or electric eel, is one of the forms traditionally discussed in the literature where PTG *k would be attested preceding *e. There are, however, both formal and distributional issues. Formally, the existence of forms with initial m (Tenetehára murake ‘poraquê’; Harrison & Harrison, 2013Harrison, C., & Harrison, C. (2013). Dicionário Guajajara-Português. Associação Internacional de Linguística (SIL)., p. 113) matching forms with a supposedly etymological p- (Tocantins Asurini poraké ‘poraquê’; Cabral & Rodrigues, 2003Cabral, A. S. A. C., & Rodrigues, A. D. (2003). Dicionário Asuriní do Tocantins-Português. UFPA., p. 194), often with both attested in the same language (Kagwahiva mburaki, puraki ‘electric eel’; Betts, 2012Betts, L. (2012). Kagwahiva dictionary. Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL)., p. 170) calls for adequate explanation. See that m : p correspondences, often with doublets in the same language, are expected in cases of Class Ib dependent nouns, where m- seems to code an unspecified possessor of the noun in question (Jensen, 1998Jensen, C. (1998). Comparative tupí-guaraní morphosyntax. In D. Derbyshire & G. K. Pullum (Eds.), Handbook of Amazonian languages (Vol. 4, pp. 487-618). Mouton de Gruyter., pp. 500-501, 1999Jensen, C. (1999). Tupí-guaraní. In R. M. W. Dixon & A. Aikhenvald (Eds.), The Amazonian languages (pp. 125-163). Cambridge University Press., pp. 152-153). However, purake/murake, in languages that do have this item, is an independent noun, hence the correspondence cannot be accounted for in these morphological grounds. Second, the set lacks cognates in languages such as Kamayurá, Old Guarani and Guarayu and, although limited documentation prevents a simple inference of historical hypotheses, this is enough to command caution. There are other formal properties that call for explanation, such as Wajãpi having ɨ unexpectedly matching u in the other languages – see pɨlakɛ ‘Electropharus electricus’ (Grenand, 1989Grenand, F. (1989). Dictionnaire Wayãpi-Français: Lexique Français-Wayãpi. Peeters/SELAF., p. 92) –, and the coexistence of two forms, pura and puraque in Old Tupi (see Cardim, 1925Cardim, F. (1925 [1583]). Tratados da terra e gente do Brasil. Editores J. Leite & Cia. [1583], p. 88; Marcgrave & Piso, 1648Marcgrave, G., & Piso, W. (1648). Historia Naturalis Brasiliae. Joannes de Laet., p. 151).
Finally, the set for PTG *kenaβ ‘fechar’ [to close] is very limited in distribution already in Mello (2000, p. 172)Mello, A. A. S. (2000). Estudo histórico da família lingüística tupí-guaraní: aspectos fonológicos e lexicais [Doctoral dissertation, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina].. Examination of comparative data reveals that there are a number of semantically close yet formally irreconcilable sets across TG languages, with some languages participating in multiple sets. Thus, an etymon #pemĩm is suggested12
12
I use ‘#’ instead of an asterisk for tentative reconstructions.
by Old Tupi aipemim ‘cercar assi’ [to enclose] (Drumond, 1952Drumond, C. (Org.). (1952). Vocabulário na Língua Brasílica (Vol. 1, A-H). Faculdade de Filosofia, Ciências e Letras, Universidade de São Paulo. http://etnolinguistica.wdfiles.com/local--files/biblio%3Adrumond-1952-1953-vlb/VLBrasilica_2edDrumond_1952v1_A-H_OCR.pdf
http://etnolinguistica.wdfiles.com/local...
, p. 70), Ka’apor jupimi ‘fechar o olho’ [to close eyes] (Kakumasu & Kakumasu, 2007Kakumasu, J., & Kakumasu, K. (2007). Dicionário por tópicos Kaapor-Português. Associação Internacional de Linguística (SIL)., p. 117) and Kamayurá -pemi ‘fechar’ [to close] (Seki, 2000Seki, L. (2000). Gramática do kamayurá. Editora da Unicamp., p. 317), while Mello’s (2000)Mello, A. A. S. (2000). Estudo histórico da família lingüística tupí-guaraní: aspectos fonológicos e lexicais [Doctoral dissertation, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina]. *-kenaβ is somehow13
13
I say ‘somehow’ related because the Old Tupi cognate suggests a third person object prefix *-ts-, and all cognates suggest that the root/stem is vowel-initial, #-ukenaβ perhaps. It is also likely that this etymon is ultimately relatable to the form for ‘door’.
related to Old Tupi Açoquendab ‘fechar porta’ [close door] (Drumond, 1952Drumond, C. (Org.). (1952). Vocabulário na Língua Brasílica (Vol. 1, A-H). Faculdade de Filosofia, Ciências e Letras, Universidade de São Paulo. http://etnolinguistica.wdfiles.com/local--files/biblio%3Adrumond-1952-1953-vlb/VLBrasilica_2edDrumond_1952v1_A-H_OCR.pdf
http://etnolinguistica.wdfiles.com/local...
, p. 136), Tenetehára ukênaw ‘fechar, tapar buraco’ [close, close a hole] (Boudin, 1978Boudin, M. (1978). Dicionário de tupí moderno: dialeto tupí-tenetehár do Alto Gurupí. Conselho Editorial de Artes e Ciências Humanas de São Paulo., p. 282), Old Guarani oñoquendá ‘cerrar ventana o puerta sin llave’ [to close window or door without a key] (Restivo, 1893Restivo, P. (1893 [1722]). Lexicon Hispano-Guaranicum. Wilhelm Kohlhammer. [1722], p. 207). Tenetehára u-wàpytym ‘fechar’ [to close] (Harrison & Harrison, 2013Harrison, C., & Harrison, C. (2013). Dicionário Guajajara-Português. Associação Internacional de Linguística (SIL)., p. 183) and Wajãpi ɔ-wapɨ ‘fermer’ (Grenand, 1989Grenand, F. (1989). Dictionnaire Wayãpi-Français: Lexique Français-Wayãpi. Peeters/SELAF., p. 59) suggest a third form with the same broad meaning. The fact that a single language, such as Old Tupi or Tenetehára, can participate in more than one set with semantically similar cognates suggests that independent etyma with meanings such as ‘enclose’, ‘close’, ‘cover with lid’ got confounded, either due to semantic extensions and replacement in some of the languages, or because the relevant sources are too coarse in the semantics of the material included. Be that as it may, Mello’s (2000)Mello, A. A. S. (2000). Estudo histórico da família lingüística tupí-guaraní: aspectos fonológicos e lexicais [Doctoral dissertation, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina]. *-kenaβ, if accepted as a PTG etymon offers, at best, another instance of PTG *ke, and no evidence whatsoever for a PTG velar contrast in this context.
SOME IMPLICATIONS
The proposal that PTG had a single velar stop *k offers not only the best account for the relevant comparative correspondences but also eliminates inconsistencies from the previous reconstruction with a *k - *kj contrast. Jensen (1999, p. 139, fn. 22) noted, for instance, the anomalous character of the diachronic correspondence PTG *kjer > Tenetehára ker ‘sleep’, since PTG *kj predicts, in her account, a reflex ʧ in the language. No such anomaly exists under the current proposal.
In addition, there are implications of the findings reported here for our understanding of the diversification of the Tupian language family. Rodrigues (2007, pp. 180-181)Rodrigues, A. D. (2007). As consoantes do Proto-Tupí. In A. S. A. C. Cabral & A. D. Rodrigues (Eds.), Línguas e culturas Tupí (pp. 167-203). Curt Nimuendajú/LALI/UnB. reconstructs **kj for the Proto-Tupian (PT) parent language, but this implies an unmotivated split in the PTG reflex: while **kj merges with **k in **ɨkjet > *-ɨker ‘irmã senior da mulher’ [older sister, female Ego], it is retained in **kjet > *kjer ‘dormir’ [sleep], in both cases the same phonetic context of a following **e > *e yields an unmotivated bifurcation of PT **kj (see also Rodrigues, 2005Rodrigues, A. D. (2005). As vogais orais do Proto-Tupí. In A. D. Rodrigues & A. S. A. C. Cabral (Eds.), Novos estudos sobre línguas indígenas (pp. 35-46). Editora da UnB., p. 40; Rodrigues & Cabral, 2012Rodrigues, A. D., & Cabral, A. S. A. C. (2012). Tupian. In L. Campbell & V. Grondona (Eds.), The indigenous languages of South America (pp. 495-574). Mouton de Gruyter., pp. 505-507). The present reconstruction of PTG eliminates this unmotivated split. If PT must be reconstructed with a **k - **kj contrast, PTG offers no special evidence in this respect, and the contrast was likely merged already at the Proto-Maweti-Guarani level (see Meira & Drude, 2015Meira, S., & Drude, S. (2015). A summary reconstruction of proto-maweti-guarani segmental phonology. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi. Ciências Humanas, 10(2), 275-296. https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-81222015000200005
https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-81222015000...
).
CONCLUSIONS
This paper has shown that there is no need to reconstruct a contrast between a plain velar stop *k and a palatalized velar stop *kj for the parent language of the Tupi-Guarani family. All diachronic divergences from reconstructed etyma can be accounted for as conditioned developments of PTG *k, and one sporadic development, represented in (3) as diachronic replacements in specific segmental sequences:
The relatively lengthy discussion presented here in order to deal with one very specific issue on the reconstruction of PTG shows that a proper understanding of TG historical phonology requires more attention to detail and a more careful treatment of the comparative data than has been the case so far. If further progress in our understanding of the historical development of TG languages is to be attained, the practices of relying on a superficial treatment of correspondences, or what is worse, on a few supposedly conservative languages that are taken as proxies for PTG, should be left behind as features of the past of comparative TG historical linguistics.
-
1
The “Vocabulário na Língua Brasílica”, or VLB, is arguably the main lexical source on the Old Tupi language. While the manuscript is dated to 1621, different lines of evidence suggest an earlier date for its original composition, perhaps as early as the mid 16th century (see Lemos Barbosa, 1948Lemos Barbosa, A. (1948). O Vocabulario na Lingua Brasilica. Ministério da Educação e Saúde.). I have used here the 1952 edition by Carlos Drumond.
-
2
Although PTG reconstructed forms appear in a number of different works (such as Dietrich, 1990Dietrich, W. (1990). More evidence for an internal classification of tupi-guarani languages. Gebr. Mann Verlag.; Rodrigues & Dietrich, 1997Rodrigues, A. D., & Dietrich, W. (1997). On the linguistic relationship between mawé and tupí-guaraní. Diachronica, 14(2), 265-304. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/dia.14.2.04rod
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.14.2.04rod... ; Rodrigues, 2007Rodrigues, A. D. (2007). As consoantes do Proto-Tupí. In A. S. A. C. Cabral & A. D. Rodrigues (Eds.), Línguas e culturas Tupí (pp. 167-203). Curt Nimuendajú/LALI/UnB.), this table includes forms from studies where the evidence for reconstructed etyma (cognate sets) is presented. Jensen (1984)Jensen, C. (1984). O desenvolvimento histórico da língua Wayampi [Masters’ thesis, Universidade Estadual de Campinas]., although an important study, relies essentially on the reconstructions of Lemle (1971)Lemle, M. (1971). Internal classification of the tupi-guarani linguistic family. In D. Bendor-Samuel (Ed.), Tupi studies I (Summer Institute of Linguistics Publications in Linguistics and Related Fields, Vol. 29, pp. 107-129). Summer Institute of Linguistics.. -
3
A third alternative classification is that of Gerardi and Reichert (2021)Gerardi, F., & Reichert, S. (2021). The Tupi-Guarani language family. Diachronica, 38(2), 151-188. https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.18032.fer
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.18032.fer... . In terms of the proposed subgroups it does not differ much from the other two, in particular for the lower level clades. The main difference concerns the position of Old Tupi, which appears as ‘non-southern’, or Amazonian TG language in the Gerardi and Reichert (2021)Gerardi, F., & Reichert, S. (2021). The Tupi-Guarani language family. Diachronica, 38(2), 151-188. https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.18032.fer
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.18032.fer... proposal. -
4
The clade that contains Ka’apor (along with Guajá and Avá-Canoeiro) in the Michael et al. (2015)Michael, L., Chosou-Polydouri, N., Bartolomei, K., Donnelly, E., Meira, S., Wauters, V., & O’Hagan, Z. (2015). A bayesian phylogenetic classification of tupi-guarani. LIAMES: Línguas Indígenas Americanas, 15(2), 193-221. https://doi.org/10.20396/liames.v15i2.8642301
https://doi.org/10.20396/liames.v15i2.86... classification is unnamed. -
5
Note that to limit the discussion to the issue at hand, I have only included correspondence sets for PTG *k in syllable onset position, either in morpheme/word-initial position, or in intervocalic position. PTG admits word-final codas, and *-k is frequently found in this position, though the putative palatalized segment *kj has never been reconstructed in this position. I am also not considering the reflexes of PTG *kw, which is well-supported.
-
6
The same considerations apply to Guarayu quie ‘wo, irgendwo, wohin, irgendwohin’ (Hoeller, 1932Hoeller, A. (1932). Diccionario guarayu-castellano. COPNAG., p. 210), which is sometimes offered as evidence for PTG *kje ‘here, near the speaker’ (Jensen, 1999Jensen, C. (1999). Tupí-guaraní. In R. M. W. Dixon & A. Aikhenvald (Eds.), The Amazonian languages (pp. 125-163). Cambridge University Press., p. 139). Note, though, that Jensen (1998, p. 550)Jensen, C. (1998). Comparative tupí-guaraní morphosyntax. In D. Derbyshire & G. K. Pullum (Eds.), Handbook of Amazonian languages (Vol. 4, pp. 487-618). Mouton de Gruyter. gives *ké ‘here, near the speaker’. The reconstruction of the PTG system of demonstratives raises more complex issues than those tackled here and will not be further discussed in this contribution.
-
7
PTG is reconstructed with four sets of person-indexing prefixes. Set III markers are coreferential markers that are more commonly found in certain complement clauses featuring either positional verbs (a closed class of verbs specifying the spatial position of the subject while it participates in the event of the main clause) or in so-called ‘gerund’ constructions, where they signal a co-reference between the dependent (gerund) subject and the main clause subject. See Jensen (1998Jensen, C. (1998). Comparative tupí-guaraní morphosyntax. In D. Derbyshire & G. K. Pullum (Eds.), Handbook of Amazonian languages (Vol. 4, pp. 487-618). Mouton de Gruyter., 1999)Jensen, C. (1999). Tupí-guaraní. In R. M. W. Dixon & A. Aikhenvald (Eds.), The Amazonian languages (pp. 125-163). Cambridge University Press. for details.
-
8
The conclusion that Kagwahiva ki sequences are necessarily derived can also be arrived at given the fact (see ‘the current view’) that PTG had no *ki sequence (and *ki is likewise not reconstructed for Proto-Maweti-Guarani; see Meira & Drude, 2015Meira, S., & Drude, S. (2015). A summary reconstruction of proto-maweti-guarani segmental phonology. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi. Ciências Humanas, 10(2), 275-296. https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-81222015000200005
https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-81222015000... ). -
9
This suggests that je sequences in Kagwahiva have an independent, a later origin, in Kagwahiva, and this is supported by an analysis of known cases, such as -jehe’o ‘cry’ (Betts, 2012Betts, L. (2012). Kagwahiva dictionary. Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL)., p. 120) < *-jatseʔo ‘to cry’ (Mello, 2000Mello, A. A. S. (2000). Estudo histórico da família lingüística tupí-guaraní: aspectos fonológicos e lexicais [Doctoral dissertation, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina]., p. 166).
-
10
A fact which is exemplary of the many inconsistencies in Mello’s data and analysis is the fact that, while Ka’apor ʃ takes him to reconstruct *kj in the case of ‘sleep’, this is not so in the set for ‘dirty’, even though both are presented as evidence for a Ka’apor *kj > ʃ change (see Mello, 2000Mello, A. A. S. (2000). Estudo histórico da família lingüística tupí-guaraní: aspectos fonológicos e lexicais [Doctoral dissertation, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina]., p. 128).
-
11
This seems like a noteworthy gap in view of the common, if implicit, practice in comparative TG linguistics of accepting, as a criterion of minimal distributional strength for etymologies, the presence of cognates from one of the westernmost Amazonian TG languages, like Kayabí and Kagwahiva, in addition to cognates from the better attested southern languages like Old Tupi and one or more of the Guaranian lects. It is not difficult to find, say, in Lemle (1971)Lemle, M. (1971). Internal classification of the tupi-guarani linguistic family. In D. Bendor-Samuel (Ed.), Tupi studies I (Summer Institute of Linguistics Publications in Linguistics and Related Fields, Vol. 29, pp. 107-129). Summer Institute of Linguistics. or Schleicher (1998)Schleicher, C. O. (1998). Comparative and internal reconstruction of the tupi-guarani language family [Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin]., cognate sets which have been accepted on such grounds, even though the total number of comparanda in the sets is limited to three or four. This seems to rely implicitly on a perception that the great geographic distance between these languages virtually guarantees that a given comparison reflects, in fact, a PTG etymon.
-
12
I use ‘#’ instead of an asterisk for tentative reconstructions.
-
13
I say ‘somehow’ related because the Old Tupi cognate suggests a third person object prefix *-ts-, and all cognates suggest that the root/stem is vowel-initial, #-ukenaβ perhaps. It is also likely that this etymon is ultimately relatable to the form for ‘door’.
-
Carvalho, F. (2023). Proto-Tupi-Guarani did not have a palatalized velar stop. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi. Ciências Humanas, 18(1), e20220013. doi: 10.1590/2178-2547-BGOELDI-2022-0013
REFERENCES
- Aguilar, A. M. G. C. (2017). Kawahíwa como uma unidade linguística. Revista Brasileira de Linguística Antropológica, 9(1), 139-161. https://doi.org/10.26512/rbla.v9i1.19529
» https://doi.org/10.26512/rbla.v9i1.19529 - Araújo, A. (1895 [1686]). Catecismo brasilico da doutrina christã [Facsimile edition by Julius Platzman]. B. G. Teubner.
- Bendor-Samuel, J. (1972). Hierarchical structures in Guajajara (Summer Institute of Linguistics Publications, 37). SIL/University of Oklahoma.
- Betts, L. (2012). Kagwahiva dictionary Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL).
- Boudin, M. (1978). Dicionário de tupí moderno: dialeto tupí-tenetehár do Alto Gurupí Conselho Editorial de Artes e Ciências Humanas de São Paulo.
- Cabral, A. S. A. C., & Rodrigues, A. D. (2003). Dicionário Asuriní do Tocantins-Português UFPA.
- Cardim, F. (1925 [1583]). Tratados da terra e gente do Brasil Editores J. Leite & Cia.
- Carvalho, F. O., & Birchall, J. (2022). A comparative reconstruction of Proto-Tupi-Guarani kinship terminology. LIAMES, 22, e022001. http://doi.org/10.20396/liames.v22i00.8666489
» https://doi.org/10.20396/liames.v22i00.8666489 - Castilho, P. (1937 [1613]). Os “nomes das partes do corpo humano pella lingua do Brasil” de Pero de Castilho [Edition by Plinio Ayrosa]. Empresa Gráfica da Revista dos Tribunais.
- Danielsen, S., Sell, L., & Terhart, L. (2019). Guarayu. A revised dictionary by Alfred Hoeller. Dictionaria, 7, 1-3590. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4675101
» https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4675101 - Dietrich, W. (1990). More evidence for an internal classification of tupi-guarani languages Gebr. Mann Verlag.
- Drumond, C. (Org.). (1952). Vocabulário na Língua Brasílica (Vol. 1, A-H). Faculdade de Filosofia, Ciências e Letras, Universidade de São Paulo. http://etnolinguistica.wdfiles.com/local--files/biblio%3Adrumond-1952-1953-vlb/VLBrasilica_2edDrumond_1952v1_A-H_OCR.pdf
» http://etnolinguistica.wdfiles.com/local--files/biblio%3Adrumond-1952-1953-vlb/VLBrasilica_2edDrumond_1952v1_A-H_OCR.pdf - Drumond, C. (Org.). (1953). Vocabulário na Língua Brasílica (Vol. 2, I-Z). Faculdade de Filosofia, Ciências e Letras, Universidade de São Paulo. http://etnolinguistica.wdfiles.com/local--files/biblio%3Adrumond-1952-1953-vlb/VLBrasilica_2edDrumond_1953v2_I-Z_OCR.pdf
» http://etnolinguistica.wdfiles.com/local--files/biblio%3Adrumond-1952-1953-vlb/VLBrasilica_2edDrumond_1953v2_I-Z_OCR.pdf - Gerardi, F., & Reichert, S. (2021). The Tupi-Guarani language family. Diachronica, 38(2), 151-188. https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.18032.fer
» https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.18032.fer - Grenand, F. (1989). Dictionnaire Wayãpi-Français: Lexique Français-Wayãpi Peeters/SELAF.
- Harrison, C., & Harrison, C. (2013). Dicionário Guajajara-Português Associação Internacional de Linguística (SIL).
- Hoeller, A. (1929). Diccionario Guarayo-Castellano Ms.
- Hoeller, A. (1932). Diccionario guarayu-castellano COPNAG.
- Jensen, C. (1984). O desenvolvimento histórico da língua Wayampi [Masters’ thesis, Universidade Estadual de Campinas].
- Jensen, C. (1998). Comparative tupí-guaraní morphosyntax. In D. Derbyshire & G. K. Pullum (Eds.), Handbook of Amazonian languages (Vol. 4, pp. 487-618). Mouton de Gruyter.
- Jensen, C. (1999). Tupí-guaraní. In R. M. W. Dixon & A. Aikhenvald (Eds.), The Amazonian languages (pp. 125-163). Cambridge University Press.
- Kakumasu, J., & Kakumasu, K. (2007). Dicionário por tópicos Kaapor-Português Associação Internacional de Linguística (SIL).
- Lemle, M. (1971). Internal classification of the tupi-guarani linguistic family. In D. Bendor-Samuel (Ed.), Tupi studies I (Summer Institute of Linguistics Publications in Linguistics and Related Fields, Vol. 29, pp. 107-129). Summer Institute of Linguistics.
- Lemos Barbosa, A. (1948). O Vocabulario na Lingua Brasilica Ministério da Educação e Saúde.
- Marcgrave, G., & Piso, W. (1648). Historia Naturalis Brasiliae Joannes de Laet.
- Meira, S., & Drude, S. (2015). A summary reconstruction of proto-maweti-guarani segmental phonology. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi. Ciências Humanas, 10(2), 275-296. https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-81222015000200005
» https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-81222015000200005 - Mello, A. A. S. (2000). Estudo histórico da família lingüística tupí-guaraní: aspectos fonológicos e lexicais [Doctoral dissertation, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina].
- Menendez, M. A. (1989). Os Kawahiva: uma contribuição para os estudos dos Tupi Centrais [Doctoral dissertation, Universidade de São Paulo].
- Michael, L., Chosou-Polydouri, N., Bartolomei, K., Donnelly, E., Meira, S., Wauters, V., & O’Hagan, Z. (2015). A bayesian phylogenetic classification of tupi-guarani. LIAMES: Línguas Indígenas Americanas, 15(2), 193-221. https://doi.org/10.20396/liames.v15i2.8642301
» https://doi.org/10.20396/liames.v15i2.8642301 - Montoya, A. R. (1639). Tesoro de la lengua guarani Juan Sanchez.
- Peggion, E. A. (1996). Forma e função: uma etnografia do sistema de parentesco Tenharim (Kagwahiv, AM) [Masther thesis, Universidade de Campinas].
- Pereira, A. (2009). Estudo morfossintático do Asurini do Xingu [Doctoral dissertation, Universidade de Campinas].
- Restivo, P. (1893 [1722]). Lexicon Hispano-Guaranicum Wilhelm Kohlhammer.
- Rodrigues, A. D. (1984/1985). Relações internas na família tupí-guaraní. Revista de Antropologia, 27/28, 33-53.
- Rodrigues, A. D., & Dietrich, W. (1997). On the linguistic relationship between mawé and tupí-guaraní. Diachronica, 14(2), 265-304. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/dia.14.2.04rod
» https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.14.2.04rod - Rodrigues, A. D., & Cabral, A. S. A. C. (2002). Revendo a classificação interna da família tupi-guarani. In A. S. A. C. Cabral & A. D. Rodrigues (Eds.), Línguas indígenas brasileiras (pp. 327-337). UFPA.
- Rodrigues, A. D. (2005). As vogais orais do Proto-Tupí. In A. D. Rodrigues & A. S. A. C. Cabral (Eds.), Novos estudos sobre línguas indígenas (pp. 35-46). Editora da UnB.
- Rodrigues, A. D. (2007). As consoantes do Proto-Tupí. In A. S. A. C. Cabral & A. D. Rodrigues (Eds.), Línguas e culturas Tupí (pp. 167-203). Curt Nimuendajú/LALI/UnB.
- Rodrigues, A. D., & Cabral, A. S. A. C. (2012). Tupian. In L. Campbell & V. Grondona (Eds.), The indigenous languages of South America (pp. 495-574). Mouton de Gruyter.
- Schleicher, C. O. (1998). Comparative and internal reconstruction of the tupi-guarani language family [Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin].
- Seki, L. (2000). Gramática do kamayurá Editora da Unicamp.
- Silva, B. C. C. (1997). Urubu-Ka’apor: da gramática a história [Masther thesis, Universidade de Brasília].
- Weiss, H. E. (2005). Dicionário Kayabí-português Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL).
Appendix
Etymologies. The following Appendix contains all the cognate sets that were employed in the present work. All forms are cited as they appear in the source orthography, followed by the original source glosses and with references to where in each source a given form can be found. The abbreviations employed for language names and sources are as follows: Old Tupi (TUP): “Vocabulário na Língua Brasílica” (Drumond 1952Drumond, C. (Org.). (1952). Vocabulário na Língua Brasílica (Vol. 1, A-H). Faculdade de Filosofia, Ciências e Letras, Universidade de São Paulo. http://etnolinguistica.wdfiles.com/local--files/biblio%3Adrumond-1952-1953-vlb/VLBrasilica_2edDrumond_1952v1_A-H_OCR.pdf
http://etnolinguistica.wdfiles.com/local...
, 1953Drumond, C. (Org.). (1953). Vocabulário na Língua Brasílica (Vol. 2, I-Z). Faculdade de Filosofia, Ciências e Letras, Universidade de São Paulo. http://etnolinguistica.wdfiles.com/local--files/biblio%3Adrumond-1952-1953-vlb/VLBrasilica_2edDrumond_1953v2_I-Z_OCR.pdf
http://etnolinguistica.wdfiles.com/local...
) (VLB); Araújo (1895 [1686])Araújo, A. (1895 [1686]). Catecismo brasilico da doutrina christã [Facsimile edition by Julius Platzman]. B. G. Teubner. (A86), Castilho (1937 [1613])Castilho, P. (1937 [1613]). Os “nomes das partes do corpo humano pella lingua do Brasil” de Pero de Castilho [Edition by Plinio Ayrosa]. Empresa Gráfica da Revista dos Tribunais. (C13); Old Guarani (OGU): Restivo (1893 [1722])Restivo, P. (1893 [1722]). Lexicon Hispano-Guaranicum. Wilhelm Kohlhammer. (R22), Montoya (1639)Montoya, A. R. (1639). Tesoro de la lengua guarani. Juan Sanchez. (M39); Ka’apor (KAA): Kakumasu & Kakumasu (2007)Kakumasu, J., & Kakumasu, K. (2007). Dicionário por tópicos Kaapor-Português. Associação Internacional de Linguística (SIL). (KK07); Guarayu (GUY): Hoeller (1929)Hoeller, A. (1929). Diccionario Guarayo-Castellano. Ms. (H29), Hoeller (1932)Hoeller, A. (1932). Diccionario guarayu-castellano. COPNAG. (H32), Danielsen et al. (2019)Danielsen, S., Sell, L., & Terhart, L. (2019). Guarayu. A revised dictionary by Alfred Hoeller. Dictionaria, 7, 1-3590. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4675101
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4675101...
(DST19); Tocantins Asurini (TOC): Cabral & Rodrigues (2003)Cabral, A. S. A. C., & Rodrigues, A. D. (2003). Dicionário Asuriní do Tocantins-Português. UFPA. (CR03); Kagwahiva (KAG): Peggion (1996)Peggion, E. A. (1996). Forma e função: uma etnografia do sistema de parentesco Tenharim (Kagwahiv, AM) [Masther thesis, Universidade de Campinas]. (P96), Betts (2012)Betts, L. (2012). Kagwahiva dictionary. Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL). (B12); Kayabí (KAY): Weiss (2005)Weiss, H. E. (2005). Dicionário Kayabí-português. Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL). (W05); Wajãpi (WAJ): Grenand (1989)Grenand, F. (1989). Dictionnaire Wayãpi-Français: Lexique Français-Wayãpi. Peeters/SELAF. (G89), forms followed by ‘Amapari Wajãpi’ come from the author’s own fieldwork notes; Tenetehára (TEN): Boudin (1978)Boudin, M. (1978). Dicionário de tupí moderno: dialeto tupí-tenetehár do Alto Gurupí. Conselho Editorial de Artes e Ciências Humanas de São Paulo. (B78), Harrison & Harrison (2013)Harrison, C., & Harrison, C. (2013). Dicionário Guajajara-Português. Associação Internacional de Linguística (SIL). (HH13); Kamayurá (KAM): Seki (2000)Seki, L. (2000). Gramática do kamayurá. Editora da Unicamp. (S00). Grammatical abbreviations are limited to ‘intransitive’ (INTR.), ‘third person’ (3), and ‘singular’ (sg.).
Edited by
Publication Dates
-
Publication in this collection
27 Mar 2023 -
Date of issue
2023
History
-
Received
03 Mar 2022 -
Accepted
06 Sept 2022