Biblioteca Digital Curt Nimuendaju http://biblio.etnolinguistica.org Rodrigues, Aryon D. 1985. Evidence for Tupi-Carib Relationships. In Klein, Harriet E. Mane- lis & Louisa R. Stark (editoras), South American Indian languages: retrospect and prospect. Austin: University of Texas Press. Permalink: http://biblio.etnolinguistica.org/rodrigues_1985_evidence O material contido neste arquivo foi escaneado e disponibilizado online com o objetivo de tornar acessível uma obra de difícil acesso e de edição esgotada, não podendo ser modificado ou usado para fins comerciais. Seu único propósito é o uso individual para pesquisa e aprendizado. Para o esclarecimento de possíveis dúvidas ou objeções quanto ao uso e distribuição deste material, ou para comunicar problemas com sua legibilidade (páginas defeituosas, etc.), entre em contato com os responsáveis pela Biblioteca Digital Curt Nimuendaju, no seguinte endereço: http://biblio.etnolinguistica.org/index:contato O presente trabalho, parte da Coleção Aryon Rodrigues, foi digitalizado e disponibilizado pela equipe da Biblioteca Digital Curt Nimuendaju em julho de 2010. " Biblioteca Digital Curt Nimuendaju http://biblio.etnolinguistica.org 9. Evidence for Tupi-Carih Relationships Aryon D. Rodrigues The purp ose of this paper is to present some evi­ d (' n r ('of p r (' h i fi t· () r i r ;1 n cI h i fi t" 0 r i. r <1 I. r (' 1. a t ion s b e ­ tween the languages of the Tu pi'" stock and those of the Carib family" I proposed the Tupi'" stock as comprising seven faml"1"les--Tupl-Guaranl,~ ~ Mun d uru k'"u, J uruna,'" A r1"k'"em, Tupar1, Mond~, and Ramar~ma--and a linguistic iso­ late, Purubor-a (Rodrigues 195 8a), 1958b, 1964, 1970)" There is thus far only sparse unelaborated lexical evidence for the affiliation of some of these fam il ies; for others, such as Tuparl,-:' Mundu­ ruk~, and TUrl-Guarani, wt? hav e airpady worked out more extensive l exi.ca l. Clnd phonological correspon­ dences (Rodrigues 1961, 1980)" At the moment I be­ lieve that two languages previously included in the Tup1-Guaran~ family, Aweti and Satar~, should be reclassified as two additional. isolates (or one- / member families) in the Tupi stock" / The geographical distributi o n of the Tupi stock has the following main features: (a) It lies essentially south 01 the Amazon Ri­ ver (to the north of this boundary we find only the T UP1---: G uaranlan-: d"1a 1 ect group Wayapl-Emerl-:' '" "11 on, which reached the Oyapock river on the Brazil­ French Guyana border in post-Colombian times (M~t­ raux 1927:29-35), and the Amazonian Lingua Geral or NheengatU', a creolized dialect of Tupi-Guaranian'" / 372 Aryan D, Rodrigues Evidence for Tupi-Carib Relationships 373 Tllp 11:llllhil' III roellll"'" ii, AIII;IZ0Ili" I>y l'orllll\IIr"11' ('()­ Vene7.uelnfl c(lOsl, ill lhe pllRt hllving reached the Ionization and missionary activity). Antilles. After a geographical discontinuity, we (b) It is found mainly in the Amazon Basin; the find the westernmost and perhaps most divergent / / only exceptioll to this is the Tupi-Guarani, family, subgroup of Carib languages (Opone, Carare) in the which, although it has lIIany languages in that Ba­ Madalena Valley of Colombia. Another discontinuous sin, also sprpad5 0vI'r the PnrAn~ Basin in the subgroup, whose best known member is Hian'koto-Um'­ south and alon g most of the length o f the Brazilian ua, is located on the Caquet~ and Apaporis Rivers coast in the east. (Yapur~ Basin) in southern Colombia, but this is / (c) Five of the members of this stock--Tupari, linguistically very close to the Makiritare (Yeku­ Arik~m, Mond~, Ramar~ma, and Purubor6--are found in ana) subgroup on the Ventuari River in Venezuela the area betwe e n the Machado (Jipariln~) and the (which, in turn, is more akin to the languages of / 2 Guapor~ Rivers, in the highest part of the Madeira the Uraricuera, such as Wayumara). Palmela, a Basin (in the Br az ilian State of Rond~nia), and a Carib language once spoken on the Guapor~ River, sixth me mber, Sa tar' (Maw~), is spoken on the lower south of the Amazon, exhibits features typical of Madeira. the North Amazonian languages and was probably T h (> C;) r i h I all f.\ IJ <l:\ C' 5 C () 11 5 t I: IJ I C' () n I. y () 11 C' f:1 m i. 1 Y , dLsplaced to thnt re~i()n in i1 very late mil',ration w II i c II III n y I> (' s" hili v i e1" Ii i 11 I () I', (~ n" lic ;1 I I Y d f fer c n ­ (19th century) (cf. Fonseca and Almeida 1899:229­ tiated subgroups . These subgroups have not yet I 234). A Carib linguistic isolate is Pimenteira, a been clearly defined. However, the most likely language which in the 18th and 19th centuries was I I ' division is between languages spoken north and spoken far from Amazonia, between the Gurgu~ia and ~ south of the Ama z on River. The latter group may be the Piaui Rivers in the northeastern Brazilian / further divided into two subgroups, with one com­ State of Piaui, and by the end of the 17th century prised o f Ap i ak' o f the Tocantins, Ar~ra and Parirf had been farther in western Pernambuco, near Cabro­ 3 of the lower Xin g G, and Txik~o of the upper XingG. b6", on the left bank of the Sao Francisco River. ,­ The other would encompass Nahukw'-Kal a p~lo-Kuik~ru Lexical similarities between Tupi and Carib lan­ , / ,­ on the upp e r XJngu and lIakairi, the southernmost guages were pointed out in the past by various / Ctlrih Inllf.',II;)F, C' on 1.111' IIpp('r £:1115('" ;111(1 1I;llovi scholars. AS early as 1909 d(' Goeje said that "se­ RivC'rs (Xillgll I\""ill) ;111(1011 lil e. ' '1'(>1(>5 I'i res <lnd , veral words, which are not onomatopoetic, appear to Novo Rivers (T a paj6s Basin) . pertain at once to the primitive (i.e. proto-) Ca­ The northern Carib languages are numerous and rib language and to the primitive Tupi or to the widespread, extending from north of the Amazon primitive Aruak; would they be relics from a time, 4 mouth to the Orinoc o River and further, along the when these families were yet only one?" Evidence£or Tupi-Carib Relationships ' 375 374 Aryon D. Rodrigues I , / wordR from !lomc' (I t h (' ,. Illngllilgl"s w(~rc llddcd, mORt o( Our COIIIPflt' ~()II () r ~ ()III (I I <l n p, 11:l f', (' S of t II (' 'I'll pi them taken from de Goeje 1909 and 1946); and Bakai­ stock with languages of the Carib family led to the / ri (Steinen 1892 and Weatley ms.) as a representa­ establishment of regular phonological corresponden­ tive of the South Amazonian languages (with a few ces between both groups. These correspondences, examples from Nahukw~ after Steinen 1894 and de presented in Tables and 2, are based on over 100 . I Goeje 1909). By taking into account such languages lexical equations covering such domains as kinship, I we reduce the possibility of including in List A body and plant p<lrts, nature, l1on-cu' ILural and cul­ sets of correspondences valid only for a particular tural items qualities <l c ti o ns and stat e s In ad­ subgroup of languages. dition to some g rammatic a l morphemes, including List B consists of correspondences found only U perSOl1 markers. '[' h (' (' q :l l. () n ~, wh i (' hill' (' p r (' s (' n t e d / / between the Tupi-Guarani family (excluding the In List A, are indi C;.ltive of genetic relationship. / other Tupi families) and North Amazonian Carib lan­ In compiling Tables and 2 only the Carib Lan­ guages. To the Carib languages used in List A were guages often recurring in List A were specified; added Way~na (Coudreau 1892, de Goeje 1946) as well the other laneuages of the same family appearing in as other North Amazonian languages (after de Goeje that list b e have in ~eneral similar to one of the 1909 and Koch-Gr~nberg 1928). These corresponden­ specified languRg('s ces include words for fauna, flora, and cultural for List A only sOl11e languag e s of each group ;' artifacts which are common to the whole Tupi-Guara­ were used, selected from those for which more lexi­ nl~ family. They probably reflect a contact either cal and grammatical information was available to /. ~ b etween an ancestor of the present day TupI-Guaranl me. For th e Tupl~ stock, I took Tuplnam. b a/ ( 16th and languages and an ancestor of the north Amazonian 17th century sources, especially Anonymous 1952­ Carib languages, or between one of the Tupi-Guarani" ;' 19,)] , p h 0 n (' mi (. 7. (' rI :0 r I (' r Il (l d ri p, I l(' ~ 1 C) S C) :111 d 1911 I) / / longungeR And on(' or L h (' North AmAzoniAIl Cilrib ll1n­ as a repreSellLai. ve of th e Tllpi '- (;uar:llli f ',1111 i 1 Y guages with subsequent diffusion within the respec­ (wo rds not attested for Tupinal11h~ were t <lken from ,­ ,­ tive family. Bu t these strictly Tupi-Guarani/North" Old Guarani, Ru "i, z d e ~1 0 n toy a ) 639) ; Tup a ri (Caspar Amazonian Carib correspondences (which constitute and Rodrigues ms.) as il membCo'r o f the Tupari" fami­ the bulk of the lexical similarities so far mentio­ 'I Y il 11 d HUll d II r II k;' (c,' () r (s 1 9 7 ' ~ "" d In.s.) it S a ned by previous authors) are Rurely not due to ge­ memb e r of thl' MUllduruk~ fomily .