CTLF Corpus de textes linguistiques fondamentaux • IMPRIMER • RETOUR ÉCRAN
CTLF - Menu général - Notices

Arte da língua Brasílica

Figueira, Luis

DomaineTraditions non-occidentales
SecteurGrammaires amérindiennes [4756]

Biblioteca Digital Curt Nimuendajú (éd. 1621?)

Internet Archive (2e éd 1687)

Biblioteca Nacional Digital (4e éd. 1795)


Figueira, Luis

Datation: ca 1575-1643

Figueira was born in Almodôvar, Portugal between 1574 and 1576, joining the Jesuit Order, Companhia de Jesús, in 1592 at the College of Évora. Upon finalizing his studies, he departed for the mission at Bahia, Brazil, in 1602 where his potential, especially from a literary standpoint, was quickly recognized by his superiors – e.g. being commissioned to write the Carta Bienal within the first years of his residence in the colony (Leite 1940, p. 22). These talents propelled Figueira to a prominent position in a turbulent period of growth for the Portuguese colony and its Jesuit missionary project in the first half of the seventeenth century on pedagogical, political and geographic grounds (see Grover 1993). His first notable assignment came in 1607, when Fernão Cardim ordered him to accompany an accomplished evangelizer of the Order, Francisco Pinto, to record and assist with the conversion of certain hostile Tapuia groups in the Serra de Ibiapaba region, blocking (with their French allies) the northward expansion of the Portuguese colony (Castelnau-L'Estoile 2006, p. 471-476, Chambouleyron 2003, p. 171). In the Relação da Missão do Maranhão (1609), Figueira describes the target group's raid of the allied aldeia in which they were staying, ultimately resulting in father Pinto's death and the abandonment of the assignment. After this failure, Figueira returned to work at the College of Pernambuco as teacher and dean (‘reitor’) (Leite 1940, p. 37-38) for more than a decade. It was during this period that he mastered the local Tupi dialect and composed his Arte da língua Brasílica, which received approval for printing in 1620, see Approvaçam of Padre Cardoso (Arte, f. i). Meanwhile, Portuguese military forces ousted the French occupants in and around Maranhão, and secured the region as regards militant hostile groups of natives over the second decade of the seventeenth century (Whitehead 2014, p. 89-91), setting the stage for Figueira to found the Jesuit mission at Maranhão in 1622. For more than a decade, he dedicated himself entirely to this mission, teaching, recruiting and performing key administrative duties. In 1636, he returned to Portugal to recruit more irmãos for his cause (Leite 1940, p. 69), to petition for provisions and powers for the Order in the State of Maranhão and Grão-Pará from the Portuguese Crown, and to obtain judicial rights from Rome for the mission (Machado dos Santos 2013, p. 13). He did not return from Europe until 1643, at which point he met a tragic end. His ship reportedly sunk near the aldeia of Belém at the mouth of the Amazon and the survivors were killed at the hands of a band of Itapicuru natives (Chambouleyron 2003, p. 174-175).

Titre de l'ouvrageArte da língua Brasílica
Titre traduitGrammar of the Brazilian Language
Titre courtArte da língua Brasílica
Remarques sur le titreComplete title: Arte da lingva Brasilica, Composta pelo Padre Luis Figueira da Companhia de IESU, Theologo.
Période|17e s.|
Type de l'ouvrageComplete grammar covering phonology, morphology and syntax. Figueira does not include any texts of a religious nature, or segments devoted to practice texts, etc.; instead this work is entirely grammatical. Didactic/pedagogic grammar for learners of the ‘língua brasílica’ (Tupinambá).
Type indexéGrammaire descriptive | Grammaire didactique | Grammaire élémentaire | Grammaire pour étrangers
Édition originale1621(?), Lisbon, Portugal, Manoel da Silva.
Édition utiliséeFirst edition. Biblioteca Nacional do Brasil, Rio de Janeiro: C.002.008 – Obras Raras.
Volumétrie[3] 91 [1] f.; 15 cm.The page number on f. 21 is misprinted as 31. F. 44r missing. ‘9’ is printed upside-down in page number on f. 90, appears as ‘60’. In the ‘Rudimenta’ section of his work (Arte, f. 36v-91r), wherein he provides separate chapters for each of the traditional eight parts of speech, Figueira labels ‘Participles’ as the third part of speech, i.e. different from the Alvaristic model that he follows. In transitioning to the indeclinable portion of this ‘Rudimenta’ section, he proceeds directly to the ‘Preposition’ as the fifth part of speech, thus neglecting to provide a ‘fourth-part’ chapter altogether. Despite this error in his headers, he does, in fact, provide a subchapter for all eight parts of speech. This title error is not corrected in subsequent editions of the Arte. Numerous catchword discrepancies. Navarro (1995) mentions a number of spelling errors that occurred in the original print. These were later amended in the editing process for the second edition (1687).
Nombre de signes90000
Reproduction moderne4th ed., 1795, Arte da Grammatica da lingua do Brasil composta pelo P. Luiz Figueira, natural de Almodovar. Quarta impressão by José Mariano da Conceição Veloso (1742-1811). Lisboa, Officina Patriarcal.
5th ed., 1851[-1852], Grammatica da lingua geral dos indios do Brasil, reimpresso pela primeira vez neste continente depois de tão longo tempo de sua publicação em Lisboa, offerecida a S.M. Imperial… by João Joaquim da Silva Guimarães. Bahia, M. Feliciano Sepúlveda.
7th ed., 1880, Arte de grammatical da lingua brasílica by Emilio Allain. Rio de Janeiro, Lombaerts & C.
8th ed. (German), 1899, Der Sprachstoff der brasilianischen Grammatik dês Luis Figueira nach der Ausgabe von 1687 by Julio Platzmann. Leipzig, B.G. Teubner.
DiffusionFigueira's grammar is best known from a number of re-editions, which are not characterized by even distribution. The first edition of his work was printed in Lisbon by Manoel da Silva and, although no date is officially printed on the original, it received the customary licenses from the Order for printing in 1620, most likely being printed the following year. The precise date of the first publication, however, is disputed and, according to Magalhães (2011, p. 380-381), Manoel da Silva had not begun printing in Lisbon until decades after this suggested date. This supports Platzmann's revelation in the Introduction to the latest edition of the Arte (1878, p. VII), conceding the restricted circulation of this first edition in stating that “no exemplars were found anywhere in Brazil until 1880” (‘in ganz Brasilien befand sich bis zum Jahre 1880 kein Exemplar’).
2nd ed., 1687, with a slightly different title, Arte de grammatica da lingua Brasilica do P. Luis Figueira, Theologo da Companhia de JESUS. Lisboa, Miguel Deslandes.
The second edition was edited by João Felipe Bettendorf (S.J.; 1625-1698), who worked at the Maranhão mission from 1661, after Figueira's death, and may have been familiar with a pre-print exemplar of his work (Silva Tavares 2008, p. 3). After being expelled in 1684, he worked in Lisbon at the printing press of Miguel Deslandes, where this edition would be printed in 1687 (ibid.), becoming the best known of all (Altman 2012, p. 19) and the base for later editions.
3rd ed., 1754, Arte de Grammatica da lingua do Brasil, Lisbon, Miguel Deslandes.
The third edition, 1754, has never been described (Platzmann 1878, p. VIII), and was most likely made to disappear officially, given the prohibition of the instruction of indigenous languages in the Brazilian colony the following year (Altman 2012, p. 19).
Langues ciblesFigueira does not explicitly provide a name for the language that he describes in his Arte, instead referring to it simply as the ‘língua brasílica’, as found in the title of the work. For Figueira and his contemporaries on the Brazilian missions, the term ‘língua brasílica’ is used to refer to the Tupinambá language in a supradialectical fashion, i.e. as used to communicate with the various Tupi communities that dotted the Brazilian coastline during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (Altman 2012, p. 17). Edelweiss (1969) distinguishes three isoglosses for Tupinambá in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries: Guanabara, Bahia and Maranhão, to which Navarro (2011, p. 6) adds the variants of São Vicente and Pernambuco. The latter, also called “Northern Tupinambá” (‘tupinambá del norte’) by Navarro (2014, p. 34), constitutes the variety described by Figueira in his grammar (as opposed to that of Bahia, described by Anchieta). This holds considering that he, reportedly, “had not even begun studying [the language]” (Vieira 1998) before being relocated to Pernambuco in 1609. See Navarro (2011, 2014) and Edelweiss (1969) for further grammatical evidence for the regional Pernambuco variety acting as the object of Figueira's Arte.
Langue des exemplesLíngua brasílica (Old Tupi – Tupinambá of Pernambuco)
Sommaire de l'ouvrageThe opening pages of the work, including licences, etc., does not have page numbers:
Aprovacam [sic] (Manuoel Cardoso), Prologo ao leitor. Page numbers begin here, however chapters are not numbered or consistently divided.
Das letras que sse usaõ nesta lingua (f. 1r-2r). Declinaçaõ dos Nomes por numeros, & casos (2v). Nomes adjectiuos do singular, & plurar (2v-3v). Da distinçaõ dos casos (3v-6r): Do Nominatiuo (3v), Do Genitiuo (3v-4r), Do Datiuo (4r), Do Accusatiuo (4v-5v), Do Vocatiuo (5v-6r), Do Ablatiuo (6r); Das Conjugaçoês dos verbos (6r-7r).
Primeira conjugaçam geral dos verbos do artigo A (7r-19r): Modo Indicatiuo (7r-9r): Tempos. Presente. Imperf. Preterito. Plusquãperf. (7r-8v), Futuro (8v); Modo Imperativo (8v-9r): Tempo presente (8v-9r), Futuro, modo mandativo (9r); Modo Optativo (9r-10r): Tempo presente, & imperfeito (9r-9v), Preterito perf. & plusq. perf. (9v), Futuro (9v-10r); Modo Permissivo (10r-11r): Presente (10r), Imperfeito (10r-10v), Preterito perf. & plusq. perf (10v), Futuro (10v-11r); Modo Conjuntivo (11r-11v): Presente, Imperfeito, Preterito, Plusquam perf. Futuro (11r); Modo Infinitivo (11v-13r): Presente, Imperfeito (11v), Preterito, & plusquam perfeito (11v), Futuro perfeito, & Supino em, Tum (12r), Futuro imperfeito (12r), Supino passivo, ou participio passivo (12r), Gerundio, & Supino (12r-13r); Conjunçaõ do verbo negativo (13r-19r): Modo Indicativo do verbo negativo (13v-14v): Presente. Imperf. Preterito. Plusquam perf. (13v-14v), Futuro negativo (14v); Modo Imperativo negado (14v-15r): Presente (14v-15r), Futuro, ou modo mandativo (15r); Modo Optativo negativo (15r-16r): Presente. Imperfeito (15r-15v), Preterito, & Plusquam perf. (15v), Futuro (16r); Modo Permissivo negativo (16r-17r): Presente (16r-16v), Imperfeito, Preterito, & Plusquam perfeito (16v), Futuro (16v-17r); Modo Conjuntivo negativo (16r): Presente, Imperfeito, Preterito, Plusquam perfeito (16r); Modo Infinitivo negativo (17r-19r): Presente. Imperfeito (17r-17v), Preterito, Plusquam perf. (17v), Futuro perfeito, & Supino (17v), Supino passivo, & Participio passivo (17v), Gerundio, & Supino activo (18r), Gerundios dos verbos naõ activos (18r); Annotaçaõ sobre estas Negaçoês (18r-19r). There is no explicit mark to end chapter, however f. 19v begins in same title heading font and format as that f. 7r, ‘Primeira conivgaçam’. Figueira leaves the bottom half of f. 19r blank so that the header is found at the top of f. 19v – he does not do this, however, in the case of f. 7r.
Segunda Conjugaçam geral dos verbos, que começaõ por pronome, Xe (19v-28v): Modo Indicativo Affirmativo: Tempo presente, Imperfeito, Preterito, Plusq. perf. (19v), Negativo (20r-21r*), Futuro (21r), Negativo (21r-21v); Modo Imperativo (21v-22r): Presente (21v), Negativo (21v-22r), Futuro (22r), Negativo (22r); Modo Optativo (22r-24r): Presente. Imperfeito (22r-22v), Negativo (22v), Preterito, Plusquam perf. (23r), Negativo (23r-23v), Futuro (23v), Negativo (23v-24r); Modo Permissivo (24r-25v): Presente (24r), Negativo (24r), Imperfeito, Preterito, Plusquam perfeito (24v), Negativo (24v-25r), Futuro (25r), Negativo (25r-25v); Modo Conjuntivo (25v-26r): Presente, Imperfeito, Preterito, Plusquam perf. Futuro (25v), Negativo (25v-26r); Modo Infinitivo (26r-28v): Presente, Imperfeito (26r), Negativo (26r-26v), Preterito. Plusquam perf (26v), Negativo (26v-27r), Futuro perf (27r-27v), Negativo (27v), Futuro imperf. (27v), Negativo (27v), Gerundio, & Supino (27v-28r), Negativo (28r); Da Conjugaçaõ de alguns verbos irregulares (28v-34v): Do verbo . dizer (29r-30r): Presente (29r), Imperativo. Presente (29v), Gerundio, & Supino (29v-30r); Do Verbo Ajur. Vir (30r-30v)*: Presente (30r), Imperativo (30v), Conjuntivo (30v); Do Verbo Ajub. Estar deitado (30v-31r); Do Verbo Ain. Estar deitado (31r-31v); Do verbo Amano, Morrer (31v); Do Verbo Aicó, Estou, ou tenho ser (32r); Do verbo Aiqué. Entro (32r-32v); Aìtic. Derrubo. Verbo activo (32v); Do verbo Ajar. Tomar, activo (33r), Do verbo Apygnò, signfica o mesmo que o verbo latino, Pedo (33r-33v); Do verbo Apotí (33v); Do verbo Açó. Eu vou (34r); Da irregularidade de alguns verbos activos, que depois do artigo tem immediatamente algûa destas syllabas Ra, Re, Ro, Ru, ut Araço, Areco, Aroquer, Arur (34r-34v): Do verbo Araçó. Eu levo (34v); Do verbo Sum, es, fui (34v-36r); Das oito partes da oraçao. Nome, Pronome, Verbo, Participio, Preposiçaõ, Adverbio, Interjeiçaõ, Conjunçaõ (36v-91r): Divisaõ do nome em commem (36v-38r); Do nome Relativo (38r-43r); Dos Comparativos, & Superlativos (43r); Do Reciproco (43r-46r); Do Pronome (46r); Do Verbo (46v-61v); Da variedade, & composiçaõ dos verbos (46v-50v), Annotaçoês geraes sobre alguns tempos, & formaçoês dos verbos (50v-55v), Da formaçaõ dos modos (55v-57v), Da Negaçaõ do Conjuntivo (57v), Da formaçaõ do Infinitivo (57v-58r), Da negaçaõ do Infinitivo (58r), Da formaçaõ dos mais tempos (58r-61v): Da formaçaõ dos Gerundios (58v-61r), Da negaçaõ dos Gerundios (61r-61v); Dos fins dos Gerundios dos verbos de pronome. Xe (61v); Do Participio Terceira parte da oraçaõ (62r-65r): Dos nomes verbaes (62v-63v), Da formaçaõ destes verbaes (63v-65r); Da Preposiçaõ 5. parte da oraçaõ (65r-68v); Do Adverbio. Sexta parte da oraçaõ (68v-80v): Adverbios de tempo (69r), De lugar (69r-70r), Aos Adverbios de lugar Umàpe, Mamòpe, respondem os seguintes (70r-70v), Ao Aduerbio de Lugar Mamòpe, pera onde respondem os seguintes (70v-71r), Aos Adverbios Vmaçüípe, Mamoçuipe, se responde com os seguintes (71r-71v), Aos Aduerbios Vmarupí, Mamorupí, se responde do modo seguinte (71v), Ao Aduerbio Marangotipe, se responde com os seguintes (71v-72r), De outros Adverbios absolutos (72r-74r), Adverbios diversos (74r-74v); De algûas diçoês, que sós per si não significaõ; mas juntas a outras partes da oraçaõ, lhe daõ sentido differente (74v-80r); Da Interieiçam, setima parte da oraçaõ (80r-80v); Da Conjunçaõ, oitava parte da oraçaõ (80v-81r); Da Sintaxa, ou construiçaõ das partes da oraçaõ (81v-86v); De algûas partes da oraçaõ, que mandaõ os verbos ao gerundio (86v-89r); Comparase o Gerundio com o Conjuntivo (89v-90r); Da collocaçaõ das partes da oraçaõ entre si (90r-91r). Da syllaba (91r-91v).
The book ends here with the phrase “FINIS.” There is an illustration at the end of the work. Unlike in the 2nd edition (1687), no page follows this final one, outlined above, with a list of ‘erratas’ in the print.
*As mentioned in the ‘Physical description’ section of this entry, this page is erroneously marked ‘31’ in the print. We have labelled it ‘21’ here for the purpose of consistency.
*Please note, f. 30v is missing from the online scan suggested in this entry, in its place we find a duplication of f. 31v. This summary was composed from a personal facsimile copy that includes the original f. 30v.
Objectif de l'auteurThe author's main goal is to create an Arte in keeping with the Jesuit grammar mould, essentially replacing the earlier work of Anchieta, Arte de grammatica de lingoa mais usada na costa do Brasil (1595), which does not conform to this format (Rosa 1995, p. 280, cited in Zwartjes 2002, p. 24). This point is stressed by Padre Manoel Cardoso in his Approbation for Figueira's work (Figueira 1621, f. i), conceding that his work will “lighten the load that those learning the language generally experience because, although Anchieta's work was the first of its kind, it is deficient, and confusing” (‘facilitar […] o muito, que os que aprendem esta lingua Brasilica costumão ter […] [porque] a arte do P. Joseph Anchieta, que por ser o primeiro parto ficou muy diminuta, & confusa’). This holds considering the monumental shifts that had taken place within the Jesuit community as regards their grammar model at the turn of the seventeenth century. The Latin grammar of Álvares was officially ascended across the Jesuit community to form the standard for grammatical enterprises as of the publication of Ratio Studiorum in 1599 (Rosa 2013, p. 63-64). Thus, being educated in adherence with this grammar model while studying at the Jesuit College of Évora (Altman 2012, p. 19), Figueira considers the Tupi grammar institution in Brazil to be in dire need of modification, claiming that “it is not easy to learn a foreign language, particularly without a grammar, or instructors, who teach it artfully” (‘Não he facil […] aprend[er] algûa lingua estrangeira, […] principalmente não avendo arte, nem mestres, que por arte a ensinem’) (Figueira 1621, f. iii). Thus, he discloses that “this lack of a grammar forced him to learn the fundamentals and rules from scratch” (‘a falta, que avia de arte, […] me obrigarão […] aprender de raiz por fundamentos, & regras’) (ibid.), which were then to be examined by natives (‘Indios naturais’) and the great linguas, missionary linguists, of the Order in forming his grammar (ibid.). These fundamentals and rules to which he is referring are the guiding principles of the Jesuit grammar tradition of his time, and those familiar to the “curious fathers and brothers of the Company [of Jesus]” (‘padres, & irmãos curiosos de nossa Companhia’) (ibid., f. iv) that formed his target audience.
Intérêt généralOn orthographic grounds, Figueira's grammar exemplifies the missionaries' struggle to capture the unfamiliar high, central, unrounded vowel on the page. According to Barbosa (1956, p. 411), Europeans had selected inumerable graphemic representations for this phoneme: i, ig, ih, u, í, î, y, etc., until Figueira consolidated the ‘y’ tradition with his grammar. Although this may hold for later re-editions of his work, given the numerous spelling corrections performed in the editing process of the 2nd edition (1687) (Navarro 1995), the original print (1621?) is characterized by graphemic vacillation, especially concerning diacritic marking and this particular, exotic phoneme. Figueira does not simply offer a phonetic description of this vowel to his readers, “a pronunção he como entre u, & I […] na garganta, como ig” (Arte, f. 1r-1v) in the opening ‘Das Letras’ section of his work, he also overtly declares that he will utilize ‘y’ in place of the ‘i’ with two points, because the latter cannot be printed (ibid.), and that this grapheme will universally correspond to the phoneme in question, regardless of its position within a given word (ibid.). Despite such declarations, we find the typical contemporary ‘i’-‘y’ ambivalence in his 1st edition: e.g. “Os Numerais do singular saõ os seguintes. Oyepe, hum; Ymocõya, o segundo; Ymoçapyra, o terceiro” (1621, f. 3r), which appears in the 2nd edition (1687, p. 4) as “Os numeraes do singular saõ os siguentes. Oiepé, hum. Imocõia, o segundo. Imoçapyra, o terceiro”. Additionally, several instances of the compound grapheme ‘ig’ are found in this work: e.g. “Cig, mãy; Yxig, sua mãy” (1621, f. 39r), which corresponds with “Cy, mãi. Ixy, sua mãi.” (1687, p. 71); and “Taygra. Filho.” (1621, f. 40v), corresponding with “Täyra, filho do varaõ.” (1687, p. 75). This particular representation had been the convention presented and followed by Anchieta (1595, f. 6r-6v). It is clear that such ambiguities would have had critical repercussions for novices who were depending on this text to help them profess the Catechism aloud, and communicate orally, in Tupi.
In addition to establishing the tradition for using ‘y’ to capture the exotic high, central, unrounded vowel , Edelweiss (1969, p. 51) confirms that Figueira also advocated for the usage of ‘k’ in place of the compound grapheme ‘qu’, generally used across the Iberian Peninsula. Again, various errors are found in the text concerning this orthographic regulation: e.g. “Do verbo Aique. Entrar” (1621, f. 32r), corresponding with the amended header, “Do verbo Aiké. Entro” (1687, p. 60). Despite these initial errors, it is clear that Figueira was an advocate for the reformation the orthographic conventions of Tupi for the flourishing didactic and literary tradition of his time.
As concerns the history of printing practices for recording non-traditional languages for early missionary efforts, Figueira's revelation that the printing facilities, at least those in Portugal, could not produce the diaeresis (i.e. the trema, ï) in the early seventeenth century is informative: “at the press, they cannot put the ‘i’ with two dots” (‘na impressaõ naõ se pode meter este i com os dous pontos’) (Arte, f. 1r). Despite this, he describes how contemporary missionaries from various backgrounds used this marking in their handwritten materials in Tupi, some placing one point above and the other below the stem of the character (ibid.). This fact may be due, in part, to the diverse backgrounds of the ‘irmãos’ and ‘padres’ and, in turn, their establishment of localized conventions.
In the ‘Das letras…’ chapter of Figueira's 1st edition (Arte, f. 1r), he mentions eleven diphthongs that can be formed from the six (oral) vowels, giving the following examples: “aî, éi, yj, ôi, ûi, ào, áu, éu, iû, ôu, ûu” (ibid.). However, in consideration of Bettendorf's amendments, we find twelve diphthongs mentioned in the 2nd edition (Figueira 1687, p. 2), along with a conventional definitional note for the novice reader, “de duas vogaes resulta hûa so syllaba” (ibid.), which does not appear in the original print. In the 2nd edition, the diphthongs are presented as follows: “Ai. Ei. Oi. Ui. Yi. Ao. Au. Eu. Iu. Ou. Uu. Yu.” (1687, ibid.), essentially rearranging them into a more logical format, removing all confounding diacritic markings and adding the ‘Yu’ item to the list.
Figueira's work is also invaluable for diachronic and dialectical surveys of Old Tupi. Comparison between his work and the extant textual productionof his predecessors, namely Anchieta, his contemporaries and his successors have made such studies possible: e.g. Luccock (1808, p. 269-271), Barbosa (1956), Edelweiss (1969), etc.
Parties du discoursIt is clear that Figueira systematically adheres to the traditional Greco-Latin grammar model, particularly that assumed in the redaction of Manuel Álvares' grammar (see Zwartjes 2002). Thus, he begins his grammar with the customary chapter regarding phonology and orthography, ‘Das letras que se usaõ nesta lingua’ (Arte, f. 1r-2r). As Batista (2005, p. 133) demonstrates, Figueira also follows the internal organization of this section of Álvares' defining work, Institutio Grammatica (1572, f. III), using an alphabetical schematic to present the sound units of the language. Rodrigues (1997, p. 376-380) demonstrates, however, how short and imprecise Figueira's phonological survey is compared with other works on Old Tupi. Despite the brevity of this opening section, Zwartjes (2002, p. 34) exposes the rigidity with which he adhered to this model, stating “Figueira […] classified the same eight parts of speech in exactly the same order”, namely that which is found in the ‘Rudimenta’ section of Álvares (1972 [1572], f. 47v): Noun, pronoun, verb, participle, preposition, adverb, interjection and conjunction; i.e. beginning with declinable classes (the first four), followed by indeclinable classes (the last four). He also provides a number of definitions for the key terminological items within these chapter (Zwartjes 2002, p. 32), which was expected in didactic grammars at this time.
Figueira's exhaustive attempts to manipulate Tupi grammar to fit in the Alvaristic model are exemplified in his treatment of noun declensions. As Zwartjes (2002, p. 35) suggests, although the traditional declaration that nouns “have case” (‘casus habet’) (Álvares 1972 [1572], f. 48r) had to be refuted, Figueira craftily compared the behaviour of Tupi in this regard to that of Portuguese: “Assí como na lingua Portuguesa em lugar de casos ajuntamos alguas preposiçoens aos nomes, v.g. Pedro, De Pedro…” (Zwartjes 2002, p. 35, apud Arte, f. 3v). Despite recognizing this fact, Figueira proceeds to provide the customary sections for each nominal case: ‘Do Nominatiuo’ (f. 3v), ‘Do Genitiuo’ (f. 3v-4r), ‘Do Datiuo’ (f. 4r), ‘Do Accusatiuo’ (f. 4r-5v), ‘Do Vocatiuo’ (f. 5v-6r), ‘Do Ablatiuo’ (f. 6r). His treatment of the verb, including verbal modes, is nearly verbatim to that of the Alvaristic model. Unlike his predecessor, Anchieta (1534-1597), Figueira includes a chapter on the adverb, displaying an element of originality in his treatment of this part of speech (Zwartjes 2002, p. 49). He divides the adverb into the following categories: ‘Aduerbios de tempo’ (f. 69r), ‘De lugar’ (f. 69r-72r); and his categories of ‘Aduerbios absolutos’ include: ‘Interrogatiuos’ (f. 72r), ‘Affirmatiuos’ (f. 72v), ‘Negatiuos’ (f. 73v), ‘Demonstratiuos’ (f. 73v), ‘Iniciatiuos’ (f. 73v), ‘Prohibitiuos’ (f. 73v-73r), ‘Permissiuos’ (f. 73v), ‘Laudatiuos’ (f. 73v-74r), ‘Aduerbios diuersos’ (f. 74r-74v). Additionally, Figueira offers a presentation of various types of particles (f. 74v-80r) that are neglected by Anchieta (Rodrigues 1997, p. 394), which are categorized as an indeclinable part of speech with the adverbs. Figueira's dedication to following the traditional model is further evidenced by his closing section, ‘Da Sintaxa, ou Construiçaõ das partes da oraçaõ’ (f. 81v-91r), where he concedes five rules (‘regras’), describes certain elements that govern the gerund form of the verb, compares the gerund with the conjunctive and provides some closing remarks concerning the collocation of phrasal constituents.
Innovations term.Figueira (Arte, f. 6r-6v) offers a pragmatic, stark contrast between, what he calls, ‘artigos’ and ‘pronomes’ for personal prefixes that form the conjugational norms of Tupi, stating “certain verbs begin with articles, others begin with pronouns. […] But both articles and pronouns equally correspond to the Latin pronouns: Ego, Tu, Ille, Plur. Nos, Vos, Illi.” (‘[O]s verbos hûs se começão por artigos, outros se começão por pronomes […] Mas os artigos, & os pronomes respondem igualmente aos pronomes latinos, Ego, Tu, Ille. Plur. Nos, Vos, Illi.’). As Zwartjes (2011, p. 167) indicates, “[a]ccording to Figueira, the first class of ‘artigos’ co-occurs with ‘neuter verbs’ (= intransitive) and the second class with ‘many active verbs’ (= transitive)”. Put in other terms, Figueira cleverly presents the active-stative conjugation model of Tupi.
Figueira continues the trend of other early American missionary grammars in presenting the inclusive-exclusive first person plural distinction (Rodrigues 1997, p. 383). He presents this dichotomy in a very straight-forward fashion: “Assi os artigos, como o pronome, tem duas terminações, ou formulas na primeira pessoa do plurar. […] A primeira formula inclue em si a pessoa, ou pessoas, com que fallamos […]. A 2. formula exclue a pessoa, ou pessoas, com que fallamos.” (Arte, f. 6v-7r). The adjectival forms, ‘inclusive’ and ‘exclusive’, are not found, instead Figueira expresses this difference verbally in his definition, as per above.
Corpus illustratifParadigms are presented in both Tupi and Portuguese, not in table format. He consistently alternates between that affirmative and negative forms in these paradigms. A clear table is provided for possible verb-ending letters (Arte, f. 56v) in his section outlining the formation of verbal modes, Da formaçaõ dos modos. Figueira does not provide any longer phrases, exercises, additional texts, etc., rather examples are limited to the didactic descriptions of the parts of speech themselves.
Indications compl.
Influence subieAlthough he does not overtly recognize his predecessor, Anchieta (1534-1597), in his Arte, it is clear that Figueira consulted Anchieta's work in composing his own (Rodrigues 1997, Zwartjes 2002). Rodrigues (1997) provides a number of examples of corresponding segments of their respective works, including, for instance, the case of a single Tupi form representing the present and all indicative preterite verbal tenses (1997, p. 386); in Anchieta's Arte (1595, f. 17v), “Indicatiui modi praesens, Imperfectum, Perfectum, & Plusquam perfectum- Ajucâ, Eu mato, mataua, matei, auia matado, ou tinha morto”, which Figueira follows precisely, in Portuguese: “Modo Indicatiuo, Tempos, Presente. Imperf. Preterito. Plusquãperf.: Ajucá: Eu mato, matava, matei, matara, ou tinha morto” (1621, f. 7r). As mentioned above, this is one of many instances of near copies of Anchieta's grammar in Figueira's work.
Figueira, however, was undoubtedly familiar with other specialists that defined the tradition which he aimed to improve. For example, he refers to certain orthographic conventions of “the old linguists” [‘os antigos linguas’] (Arte, f. 1r), with particular attention to what “they call i-grosso” (ibid.). Zwartjes (2011, f. 165) explains how this term is not found in Anchieta's work, instead preferring the terms ‘áspero’ and ‘lene’ to distinguish between the contrastive vowel qualities associated with the letter ‘i’; rather this term, i.e. ‘i-grosso’, is found in the pronunciations rules in the Catechism of Araújo (1618).
Additionally, in his message to the reader, ‘Ao leitor’ (Arte, f. iii), Figueira mentions consulting natives (‘Indios naturais’) and members of the Order who had been raised among these populations, again referring to them as “major linguists” (‘grandes linguas’), which is suggestive of his participating in the wider missionary linguistic community of his time, who, ultimately, influenced his publication.
Influence exercéeAccording to Zwartjes (2011, p. 171), many sections of the anonymous grammar, Gramatica da lingua geral do Brasil (1750), describing Nhe'engatu (Zwartjes 2007), are parallel to those found in Figueira's grammar of Northern Tupinambá. Edelweiss (1969, p. 113) also calls our attention to the anonymous, eighteenth-century Vocabulario Português-Brasílico where a number of references are made to an Arte, which are supposedly directed at the 2nd edition of Figueira's grammar (1687). A more overt recognition of the importance of Figueira's work to later studies is found in John Luccock, A Grammar and Vocabulary of the Tupi Language, partly collected, and partly translated from the Works of Anchietta and Figuera, noted Brazilian Missionaries (1818). This influence on later grammarians is not restricted to studies on Tupi languages; as Zwartjes (2011, p. 180) demonstrates, Mamiani (1652-1730), who composed a grammar for the Kipeá-Karirí language (1698) in Brazil, “was familiar with the New World Tupi grammars of the ‘antigos’”. Therefore, Figueira's Arte is among the works that form the foundation for the systematic study of non-traditional languages.
Renvois bibliographiques→ Références
Altman C. 2012; Anchieta J. de 1595; Anonyme 1750; Barbosa P.. A. Lemos 1956; Castelnau-L'Estoile C. de 2006; Chambouleyron R. 2003; Edelweiss F. G. 1969; Figueira L. 1621; Figueira L. 1687; Figueira L. & Studart G. 1887; Grover M. L. 1993; Leite S. 1940; Luccock J. 1818; Magalhães P. A. 2011; Navarro E. de Almeida 1995; Navarro E. de Almeida 2011; Navarro E. de Almeida 2014; Oliveira Batista R. de 2005; Pereira da Costa J. (éd.) 1972 {Manuel Álvares [1572]}; Platzmann J. (éd.) 1878; Rodrigues A. D. 1997; Rosa M. C. 2013; Vieira P.. Antônio 1998; Whitehead N. L. 2014; Zwartjes O. 2002; Zwartjes O. 2007; Zwartjes O. 2011

Case, Justin · Zwartjes, Otto

Création ou mise à jour2017-11