Línguas Arawak da Bolívia

Abstract

Este artigo é um capítulo resumido e extraído de nossa Enciclopédia das Línguas Arawak - acrescida de seis novas línguas e dois bancos de dados (no prelo). Trata do subgrupo Bolívia (mojeño, baure, pauna, tereno) da família arawak. Nenhum ramo da família arawak apresenta tanta coesão como o subgrupo Bolívia: seu léxico, sua gramática, com um inusitado suprafixo A “não-factual”, e duas complexas cadeias de mudanças vocálicas (*i > *i > *e > *a ; *a > *ʊ / *o > i / i / u) evidenciam uma unidade diagnóstica entre suas línguas. Fornecemos dados detalhados sobre a história e a destruição dialetal dessas quatro línguas (séculos XVI-XVIII), assim como um resumo de suas estruturas fonológicas e gramaticais, antes de propor uma reconstrução do proto-Bolívia e um supergrupo Bolívia-Purus-Kampa-Amuesha (bpka) dentro das línguas arawak. Este estudo termina com uma lista de mais de 500 jogos de cognatos para o subgrupo Bolívia. Desde Payne (1991), os estudos comparativos arawak do subgrupo Bolívia são extremamente caóticos e, de uma certa forma, regrediram. Além disso, uma análise abrangente do paikone, magíana e apolista nos leva a alguns materiais lexicais falsificados que obrigam a rever o estatuto dessas línguas.

Payne’s rule and the late *o > a shift in Mojeño Ignaciano

“…

Ramirez & França's (2019) claim that a change *a > o took place multiple times and without any discernible conditioning factor -which the authors present as an explicit counterproposal to a series of claims made in Carvalho & Rose (2018) -is methodologically and empirically flawed. We show here that the supposed evidence from loanwords is artifactual, that the comparison between 18 th Guaná and modern Terena rests on an arbitrarily selective and, ultimately, misleading treatment of the relevant sources, and that the claimed ancestor-descendant relationship between Old Mojeño and Trinitario is at odds with other well-established claims about the history of Mojeño dialects, in addition to being an unnecessary and extraneous assumption.

…”

“…We show here that the supposed evidence from loanwords is artifactual, that the comparison between 18 th Guaná and modern Terena rests on an arbitrarily selective and, ultimately, misleading treatment of the relevant sources, and that the claimed ancestor-descendant relationship between Old Mojeño and Trinitario is at odds with other well-established claims about the history of Mojeño dialects, in addition to being an unnecessary and extraneous assumption. Moreover, a lexical stratification of the Mojeño lexicon in terms of basic and lessbasic strata shows that the main correspondence favored by Ramirez & França (2019) as the reflex of Proto-Arawakan *a in Mojeño is essentially restricted to nonbasic vocabulary, a finding that vindicates Carvalho & Rose's (2018) interpretation of this pattern as reflecting dialect borrowing or diffusion.…”

“…(1) Interpretation of correspondences in Ramirez & França (2019) The claims in (1) above are presented by RF as if they were conclusions that result from inferences based on certain types of evidence. This evidence is of two kinds: Evidence from early written documents on (what they assume are) antecedent stages of the relevant languages (see 2) and evidence from loanword adaptation (see 3):…”

“…(2). Direct ancestry claims in Ramirez & França (2019) (2a) 17 th century Old Mojeño is a direct, lineal ancestor of the Trinitario dialect, and a comparison of these two stages shows that Old Mojeño a > o in Trinitario.…”

“…This paper has as its goal the critical evaluation of some claims advanced by Ramirez & França (2019), henceforth 'RF', in a previous issue of this journal. The specific set of claims addressed concerns the historical phonology of vowels in the diversification of Proto-Mojeño into its descendant varieties and on the diachrony of the Bolivia-Paraná languages more broadly.…”