Corpus de textes linguistiques fondamentaux
• IMPRIMER
• RETOUR ÉCRAN
| Domaine | Traditions non-occidentales |
| Secteur | Grammaires amérindiennes [4757] |
| Auteur(s) | Anonyme [1] [1] It is generally accepted that there are three distinguishable hands responsible for this work (Zwartjes 2007, p. 57): the first composed the grammar, another composed the dictionary, and a final hand redacted the catechism, confessionary, etc. The first hand is also likely responsible for the cover page to the composite work, the title page transitioning to the dictionary (f. 237) and the closing supplement, ‘Dias, em q[ue] os Indios tem obrigação de ouvir missa, e jejuar’ (f. 411-412), indicating his organizational role in producing this work. From the material at hand, of the three authors, the first is the grammarian, not only producing a classic ‘rudimenta’ treatment of the parts of speech, a chapter on syntax and 10 pages of additional grammar rules exceeding these traditional sections (f. 206-216), but also making multiple claims to having knowledge of other Brazilian languages (e.g. f. 107, 132). Interestingly, according to the catalogue entry (‘Ficha bibliográfica’) for this manuscript at the University of Coimbra Library, another anonymous manuscript, Diccionário da língua geral do Brasil (1771), written in the City of Pará (‘Escrito na Cidade de Pará’), is redacted by this same hand. |
Datation: fl. 1750 | |
| Titre de l'ouvrage | Gramática da língua geral do Brasil |
| Titre traduit | Grammar of the General Language of Brazil |
| Titre court | Gramática da língua geral do Brasil |
| Remarques sur le titre | Complete title: Grãmatica Da Lingua geral do Brazil. Com hum Diccionario dos vocabulos mais uzuaes para a intelligencia da dita Lingua. |
| Période | |18e s.| |
| Type de l'ouvrage | Complete grammar covering phonology, morphology and syntax. (2) The ensuing section is a bilingual mono-directional, Portuguese-Lingua geral, dictionary organized alphabetically. (3) Reference word list: articles, pronouns, ‘dativos de proveito’, body parts. (4) Catechism. (5) Confessionary. (6) Articles of Faith. Descriptive grammar, Didactic/pedagogic grammar for learners of Lingua geral (Tupi Nheengatu), Dictionary and religious texts (monolingual in Lingua geral with Portuguese notes). |
| Type indexé | Dictionnaire | Grammaire descriptive | Grammaire didactique | Grammaire élémentaire | Texte religieux |
| Édition originale | No date of publication is provided, however, the scribe responsible for the Catechism and Confessionary sections signs his message to the reader, “20 de Abr. Valê. de 1750” (f. 397). The final hand signs the ‘Articles of Faith’ section, “Vã comtigo; Valê. 49” (f. 406), presumably referring to the year 1749. According to Zwartjes (2011, p. 169), the grammar portion of the work was most likely composed in the same period, especially considering that the handwriting of each scribe is “clearly recognizable as 18th-century” (ibid.). In his closing ‘Advertencia’ (f. 407) to the ‘Articles of Faith’ section of the work, this author also discloses that he is writing from Pará. Again, the other portions of the work were most likely composed in the same region. |
| Édition utilisée | Biblioteca de Coimbra (UCBG), MS 69 (1750). |
| Volumétrie | Folios damaged by humidity and grime. Folios 1-223, beginning with ‘Conjugação do verbo Jucá = Matar’ are probably numbered with original pagination. The preceding pages are foliated with roman miniscule in pencil. The pages following the grammar are paginated by a later hand with red ink. Inconsistent orthography, especially as regards character form, even within the redacted text of each hand. This is indicative of the presence of relief scribes that worked with the authors. A clear example is found in the dictionary, where the dots separating the Portuguese term from the Língua geral term (f. 235-254) become dashes (f. 255-353). It is also clear that a change of scribe occurs on other orthographic criteria. Folios 227-236, 408-410 are left blank. Inconsistent usage of catchwords. (Self-)correction found in body of text: “não” is added above line of text (f. 166). |
| Nombre de signes | 200000 |
| Reproduction moderne | |
| Diffusion | No other exemplars of this work are known. Given that this is a manuscript work, most likely intended for personal use, it is probable that no copies were produced. |
| Langues cibles | The Língua geral, “general language”, of Brazil is explicitly mentioned in the title of this grammar. It had been common practice for over two centuries for Europeans to simplify the linguistic landscape of the exotic territories they sought to control by promoting the usage of so-called ‘general languages’, hence the title of this work, which they could employ to communicate with their ethnically diverse subjects. In this respect, the target language here, the Língua geral amazônica acts as an example par excellence of such language policies, surviving to this day under the glottonym Nheengatu (‘ñe'engatú’, “good speech”). In reality, this language is one of three such “general languages” found in colonial Brazilian, each formed from a Tupi matrix language. Rodrigues (1996, cited in Zwartjes 2011, p. 144-146) distinguishes the ‘Língua geral Paulista’ (that which was spoken around São Paulo), the ‘Língua geral’ of Rio de Janeiro and Bahia (based upon Tupinambá), and the ‘Língua geral amazônica’, which is formed from the Tupinambá of the north, established in the ethnically diverse colonies in seventeenth century Maranhão. The ‘amazônica’ developed away from the Tupinambá variety with which the Jesuit community had become acquainted as it became heavily influenced by Portuguese, the speech of African slaves at the early Maranhão colony and, especially, the innumerable indigenous languages (of various language families) spoken by the groups forced to learn it in the Amazonian interior. Contemporary missionary accounts reveal the “corruption” of Tupinambá by speakers of diverse ethnicities (see João Daniel 1976 [1757]), until texts written in the older Língua geral could no longer be understood (Lee 2005, p. 193). This is exemplified by the Tupinambá Catechism of Bettendorf (1687) needing a re-edition, adapted into the “irregular, vulgar language used in these times” (Edelweiss 1969, p. 138, Rodrigues and Cabral 2011). Such instances hold considering that, in early colonial Amazônia, the ‘amazônica’ was the official language (as of the enactment of the ‘Regimento de 14 de Abril de 1655’) (Bettendorf 1910 [1699], p. 85-89) and it was used by the Jesuits as the exclusive language of evangelization and government, and the primary language of daily interactions, inside and outside their aldeia communities (Boxer 1962, p. 286). As power shifted throughout the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Portuguese became the language of administration and education officially, but the ‘amazônica’ remained as the language of everyday speech throughout the area, hence the utility of this grammar. |
| Métalangue | Portuguese |
| Langue des exemples | Língua geral (amazônica) – Nheengatu |
| Sommaire de l'ouvrage | Title page. Graòs de parentesco (i-iv); Artigos (vii); Pronomes (vii); Dativos deproveito (viii). Conjugação do Verbo Jucá = Matar (1-13): Modo Indicativo (1-8): Tempo presente (1), Imperfeito (1), Perfeito (1-2), Plusquamperfeito (2), Futuro (2-3), Imperativo (3), Futuro mandativo (3), Omeimo Futuro mais claro, (3), Optativo (3-5), Plusquam perfeito (5), Futuro. Hé o mesmo q’ o pres(en)te (5-6), Permissivo (6), Imperfeito (7), Perfeito, e Plusq. perfeito (7-8), Futuro (8); Modo conjunctivo (8-11): Presente (8-9), Preterito imperfeito (9-10), Perfeito, e Plusq. Perf. (10), Futuro (10-11); Modo Infinito (11-13): Presente (11), Imperfeito (11-12), Pret. Perfeito (12-13), Futuro perf. (13), Futuro imperf. (13), Gerundio (13), Participio do pres(en)te (13), Participio do futuro (13), Supino (13); Conjunção do negative do Verbo Jucái (14-35): Modo Indicativo (14-20): Presente (14), Imperfeito (14-15), Preterito perf(eit)o (15-17), Plusq. Perfeito (17-18), Futuro (18-19), Imperativo (19-20), Futuro mandativo (20); Optativo (20-24): Presente, e Imperf(eit)o (20-22), Perfeito, e Plusq. perfeito (22-23), Futuro (23-24); Permissivo (24-25): Presente (24), Imperf. Perf. e Plusq. perfeito (24-25), Futuro (25); Conjunctivo (26-30): Presente (26-27), Imperfeito (27-28), Perf. e Plusq. perf. (28-29), Futuro (29-30); Infinito (30-35): Presente (30), Imperfeito (30-31), Perfeito (31), Plusq. perfeito (31-32), Futuro imperfeito (32), Futuro perfeito (33); Gerundio, e Supino active (33-35); Segunda Conjugação (35-54): Modo Indicativo (34-40): Presente (35), Imperfeito (35-36), Perfeito (36-37), Plusq. Perfeito (37-38), Futuro (38-39), Imperativo (39), Futuro mandativo (39-40); Optativo (40-44): Presente, e Imperf (40-41), Perfeito, e Plusq. perfeito (41-43), Futuro (43-44); Permissivo (44-48): Imperfeito (45-46), Perfeito, e Plusq. perf. (46-47), Futuro (47); Conjunctivo (48-51): Presente (48-49), Imperfeito (49), Perfeito, e Plusq. perf. (49-51), Futuro (51); Infinito (51-52): Presente (51), Imperfeito (52), Perfeito (52), Plusq. perfeito (52), Futuro (52), Futuro perfeito (52); Gerundio, e Supino passivo (53), Participio passive (53); Conjugação por pronomes: Serve de Exemplo o Verbo Maenduar – Lembrar (54-63): Modo Indicativo (54-56): Presente (54-55), Futuro (55), Imperativo (55-56), Futuro mandativo (56); Optativo (56-58): Presente, e Imperfeito (56-57), Perfeito, e Plusq. perf. (57-58), Futuro (58); Permissivo (58-60): Presente (58-59), Imperfeito (59), Perf. e Plusq. perf. (59-60), Futuro (60); Conjunctivo (60-61): Presente (60), Imperfeito (60-61); Infinito (61-63): Presente. Imperfeito (61-62), Perfeito, e Plusq. perfeito (62), Futuro (62), Futuro imperfeito (63), Gerundio, e Supino (63); Conjugação do Verbo Maenduar negative (64-71): Modo Indicativo (64-65): Presente (64), Futuro (64-65), Imperativo (65), Futuro mandativo (65); Optativo (65-66): Presente, e Imperfeito (65), Plusquam perfeito (66), Futuro (66); Permissivo (66-68): Presente (66-67), Imperfeito (67), Perfeito, e Plusq. perf (67-68), Futuro (68); Conjunctivo (68): Presente, Imperfeito, Perfeito, Plusq. perf. (68); Infinito (69-71): Presente, e Imperfeito (69), Plusquam perf. (69), Futuro perfeito (70), Futuro imperfeito (70), Gerundio, e Supino (71); Verbos irregulares. Conjugação do verbo ¬Aè = dizer (72-73): Modo Indicativo (72): Presente (72), Imperativo (72); Conjunctivo (72); Infinito (73), Gerundio, e Supino (73), Verbaes (73); Jore = vir (74-78): Modo Indicativo (74): Presente (74), Imperativo (74); Optativo (74-75); Conjunctivo (75); Permissivo (75-76): Presente (75), Imperfeito (75-76); Infinito (76-78): Presente (76), Perfeito, e Plusq. perf. (76), Futuro (77), Futuro perfeito (77), Participio do presente (77), Participio do preter. (77), Participio do Futuro (78), Gerundio (78); Manó = Morrer (79-84): Modo Indicativo (79-80): Presente (79), Futuro (79), Imperativo (79-80); Optativo (80); Permissivo (80); Conjunctivo (80-81); Infinito (81-82), Perfeito, e Plusq. perf. (82), Futuro imperf. (82-83), Participio do Pres(en)te (83), Participio do Pret. (83), Participio do Fut. (83), Gerundio (84), Verbal (84); Icó = Estar (85-87): Indicativo (85): Futuro (85), Imperativo (85); Optativo (85); Conjunctivo (85-86); Infinito (86): Perfeito, e Plusq. perf. (86), Futuro (86), Fut. imperf. (86), Participio do Pres(en)te (86), Participio do Preterito (86), Participio do Futuro (87), Gerundio (87), Verbaes (87); Iké = Entrar (88-90): Indicativo (88): Presente (88); Conjunctivo (88-89); Infinito (89): Perfeito, e Plusq. perf. (89), Futuro (89), Futuro perfeito (89-90), Gerundio (90), Verbaes (90); Ityc = Derrubar (91-93): Indicativo (91); Conjunctivo (91-92); Infinito (92-93): Presente, e Imperf. (92), Perfeito, e Plusq. perf. (93), Futuro imperf. (93), Futuro perf. (93), Gerundio (93); Jar = Tomar (94-95): Indicativo (94); Imperativo (94); Conjunctivo (94); Infinito (95): Supino (95), Gerundio (95), Verbaes (95); Apynó = Dar traques (96-99): Indicativo (96): Imperativo (96); Conjunctivo (96-97); Infinito (97-99): Perfeito, e Plusq. perf. (98), Futuro Imperfeito (98), Futuro perfeito (98), Gerundio (98-99), Verbaes (99); Çó = Ir (99-101): Indicativo (99): Imperativo (99-100); Conjunctivo (100); Infinito (100): Perfeito, e Plusq. perf. (100), Futuro imperfeito (100), Gerundio (101), Verbaes (101); Racó = Levar (102): Indicativo (102); Futuro (102); Imperativo (102); Iub = Estar deitado (103): Indicativo (103): Imperativo (103); Conjunctivo (103); Infinito (103); Gerundio (103); Ain = Estar deitado (104): Indicativo (104); Conjunctivo (104); Infinito (104); Gerundio (104); Verbal (104); Apotí = Atar (105): Indicativo (105); Terceira pessoa relativa (105); Imperativo (105); Conjunctivo (105); Infinito (105); Gerundio (105); Verbaes (105). The following portion of this work does contain a title as follows, and the author refers back to this portion as the ‘Regras desta Arte’ in its Indice (225): Partes da Oração (107-227): Do Nome (107-129): Substantivo (107-108), Adjectivo (108-109), Absoluto (109), Verbal (109-110), Possessivo (110-111), Relativo (111-119); Comparativo (119-121); Superlativo (122-124); Reciproco (124-129); Pronome (129-135): Pronomes extravagantes (132-135); Verbo (135-174): Verbos neutros (136-137), Neutros verdadeiros (137-138), Passivos (138-139), Absolutos (139-141), De Verbo Sum (141-143), Dos Modos (143-157): Uso do Optativo (145-149), Modo Permissivo, ou Concesivo (149-151), Modo Conjunctivo (151-154), Do Modo Infinitivo (154-157); Do Gerundio (157-161), Dos Verbos negativos (161-166); Do Verbo Passivo (166-171), Advertencia sobre os Verbos da 3a. Conjugação (171-174); Preposição (174-179); Adverbio (179-190): Adverbios interrogativos (179), Adverbios de lugar (179), Adverbios de tempo (179-181), Aos Adverbios de Lugar se responde com os seguentes (181-184), Adverbios affirmativos (184-186), Adverbios negativos (186-187), Adverbios demonstrativos (187-188), Incitativos (188), Prohibitivos (188-189), Permissivos (189), Laudativos (189), Adverbios diversos (189-190); Algumas Dicções que farem augmenter, declarer, ou diminuir o significado as verbos (190-194); Interjeição (194); Conjunção (195); Syntaxe (195-205): I (200), II (200-201), III (201-202), IV (202), V (202-205); Syllaba (205); Regras da Gramâtica Da Lingua geral do Brazil (206-217): I (206-208), II (209), III (209-210), IV (210-216); Taboa Das Preposições, Adverbios, Interjeições, e Conjunções da Lingua geral do Brazil (217-223); Taboa Dos Verbos Conjugados nesta Arte (223); Indice Das materias contendas nas Regras desta Arte (225-227). Diccionario Da Lingua geral do Brazil (237-353). Artigos (355), Pronomes (355), Dativos de proveito (355); Nomes Das partes do Corpo (356-359). Following these lists, the author inserts an untitled reference to adverbs (361-369). Doutrina no Idioma da Lingua geral (370-379): Sinal da Crus (370), Padre Nosso (370), Ave Maria (371), Creio em Deus Padre (371-372), Os Mandam(en)tos da ley de Deus (372-373), Os Mandam(en)tos da s(an)ta M(adr)e Igr(ej)a (373), Sacramentos (373-374), Pecados Mortâes (374), Teologais (374), Novicimos (374-375), Perguntas (375-378), Confissão (378-379), Acto de Contrição (379). Confessionario IDioma da Lingoa geral p(ar)a se confessor por elle em caso de Necessid(ad)e (381-396): Sinal Paulinus. Sancta crus na Confissão (381-384), Prim(e)ro Mandam(en)to (384-385), Segundo Mandam(en)to (385), Terceiro Mandam(en)to (386), Quarto Mandam(en)to (386-388), Quinto Mandam(en)to (388-389), Seixto Mandam(en)to (389-393): Para Molheres tent(aç)ões (391-393), Setimo Mandam(en)to (393), Oitavo Mandam(en)to (393-396); Ao leitor (397); Pratica p(ar)a ajudar às em morrer (399-406): Actos de fê (399-401), Actos de Esperança (401-402), Actos de Carid(ad)e amor de deus; e do Proximo (402-403), Actos de Contrição, que deve dizer com aboca, ou com o coração junto com o sacerdote que lo dirã com muita compunção (403-406). ‘Advertencia’ (407). ‘Dias, em q[ue] os Indios tem obrigação de ouvir missa, e jejuar’ (411-412). |
| Objectif de l'auteur | As suggested above, the first scribe is most likely the organizational hand of the work as it stands. He does not provide any introductory materials, nor does he explicitly reveal his purposes for creating this grammar. Additionally, as is typical of manuscript works, no licenses or approbations from other members of the Society of Jesus, or otherwise, are found in the front matter. We can speculate, however, that he has formed a grammatical reference for personal usage and appended the dictionary and catechism to his grammar, also originally intended for personal usage, as an afterthought. This is further supported by the nine pages that separate the grammar from the dictionary (f. 227-236), which were probably the conventional blank folios left at the end of a work to protect the body of the text. A similar lacuna is found at the end of the religious text section (f. 407-410), before the closing reference for festival days, made again by the first hand (f. 411-412), supporting the composite nature of the work. As regards the referential character of the grammar, compared with the pedagogical character of the “old grammar” (‘Arte antiga’, f. 148) that this author was familiar with, this is supported by the various index tables found at the back of this original work (f. 217-227), and the seemingly out-of-place reference charts collocated throughout the work. For instance, in place of a prologue, the first author inserts four folios with word lists for ‘degrees of consanguinity’, the ‘articles’, the ‘pronouns’, and the ‘dativos de proveito’ at the beginning of the work (Zwartjes 2011, p. 169). Although they are numerated with roman numerals, these marking were added in pencil at a later date, therefore not encompassed in the original grammar, which begins with 105 pages of verb charts and ends, according to the original numeration, at f. 223. Upon further inspection, it is clear that each author appends (or prepends) reference lists as required personally. Thus, the second scribe, responsible for the dictionary, appends his own lists for the ‘articles’, the ‘pronouns’ and the ‘dativos’, however, in place of ‘consanguinity’, this author inserts a list of ‘parts of the body’ and a larger section on adverbs. The second scribe is explicit about not composing an Arte, rather providing a personal reference for adverbs, not for the other seven parts of speech, because there are many adverbs and they are frequently asked about (‘Todo o Gramatico saberá que as partes da oração são oito, e não trao aqui dellas porque não componho por hora a Arte,[…] e como Gramatio saberá que os adverbios são m[ui]tos, e por ells comunm[en]te perguntamos’) (f. 361). Finally, as regards the catechism, confessionary, and other religious materials, the work is produced exclusively in Língua geral, save for headers in Portuguese, by the third hand. This fact is also indicative of the work not being aimed at novices learning Tupi in a scholastic setting who might require Portuguese, Latin, or both, for reference. We know, however, that this portion of the text was intended to be shared, as in his message to the reader at the end of the confessionary, the author calls for future users to correct his excusable errors as they see fit (‘se achares alguns errors nelle […] podes emmendallos e perdoame deste molesto’) (f. 397). Finally, in the Advertencia that this author inserts at the end of this section (f. 407), the author concedes that his intentions are to offer the contents of this catechism to the natives as per their obligations as missionaries, laid out in the papal bull of Paul III, viz. Sublimis Deus. Therefore, this work is exemplary of the pragmatic linguistic tools carried by missionaries on the eighteenth-century missions in the Amazon region and circulated within their exclusive circles. |
| Intérêt général | Compared with other, earlier, missionary works concerning Tupi languages in Brazil, this work provides valuable insight into sociolectical variation (see Zwartjes 2007). This holds considering the spoken character of the Língua geral, being described as “the Vulgar” by contemporary sources (Lee 2005), which functioned as a lingua franca for speakers of upwards of 40 languages within a given aldeia in the mid-eighteenth century (id., p. 183, apud Daniel 1975 [1757-1776], p. 227). However, in this unique linguistic environment, it was also emphasized that the missionaries master and employ this language themselves. In this light, the author of this grammar describes certain features as typical of the speech of these missionaries, called “Ladinos” (f. 113, 117, 129, 131, 181, etc.), even suggesting that certain ‘Latinized natives’ imitate the usage of the optative mode by these Ladinos (‘alguns Indios mais ladinos nos imitão no Optativo’) (f. 149). The author is not clear here, however, as to whether he is referring to certain indigenous populations that had been integrated into the aldeias at an earlier date or, perhaps, to the important mestizo population. The interest here lies in his recognition of the diverse demographic composition of his environment. He vaguely concedes certain features that are present among some natives – i.e. not present in the speech of others, e.g. “alguns Indios usão do artigo ‘O-’, em lugar do pronome ‘I-’” (f. 173), thus confusing the conjugational dichotomy that defines the language. This can be contrasted with his earlier prescription that “sempre he ‘O-’” (f. 71), which is to be found in his reference charts preceding the grammar. By extension, the author also reveals a number of features with which novices and less experienced users struggle, e.g. “’I-‘ ja se usa pouco, especialmente nos que são pouco versados na lingua geral” (f. 110), presumably referring both to novice missionaries and to new converts. In other places, he is more explicit about offering advice to novices of the mission particularly; for instance, the folios 113-116 are dedicated to morphophonemic changes (i.e. silent letters, ‘mudanças’) that are common in all of the Jesuit Tupi grammars. In this section, he states “ainda que ha muita variedade, não ha muita difficuldade” (f. 113), which holds considering the number of instances in which he reassures the reader that they will learn through usage. Additionally, the author signals the degree of politeness associated with certain expressions (Zwartjes 2007, p. 58-59). Some expressions and phenomena, he explains, are no longer in usage and are unknown to the speakers of Língua geral amazônica; e.g. the particle ‘oè’ being found in place of the older ‘mã’, found in the catechisms (f. 148), i.e. Tupinambá as described in Anchieta and Figueira, but “not used today by anybody, most of them not understanding it” (‘não ha hoje pessoa alguma, que a use; eas mais dellas não a entendem’) (ibid.). |
| Parties du discours | Despite not providing a section regarding phonology and orthography, the author of this grammar is consistent in adhering to the conventions of the traditional Alvaristic grammar model. In place of phonology, the author supplies over one hundred pages of verb charts with the identical model verbs use by Anchieta and Figueira for their works on Classical Tupinambá (see Zwartjes 2007, 2011, p. 169). Following this unique reference section, the author proceeds with a conventional ‘Rudimenta’ chapter, beginning with the ‘Partes da oração’ chapter (f. 107) and followed by the eight ‘sacred’ parts of speech of Álvares' grammar in order: Nouns, Pronouns, Verb, Participle, i.e. the declinable word classes; followed by Preposition, Adverb, Interjection, Conjunction, i.e. the indeclinable classes, dedicating individual chapters to each. The author follows this with a short section dedicated to syntax and another to the syllable after Figueira (1621?), and following the Alvaristic model (Zwartjes 2007, p. 57-58). Unlike his predecessors however, the author of this grammar provides an additional section, ‘Regras da Gram'atica Da Lingua geral do Brasil’ (f. 206-216), in which he offers a number of additional observations regarding adjective formation, nominalizations and verb derivations, and a number of phonotactic and morphophonemic observations in a clear, organized fashion. Although most of these observations are also found in his older source(s), they are not presented in such a user-friendly manner. Similar to Figueira's grammar (1621?), the author here provides clear, traditional definitions for each of the parts of speech, and sub-parts, treated throughout the ‘Rudimenta’ section of his work. As mentioned above, the second author provides his own treatment of adverbs (f. 361-369). This author organizes the adverbs in his own order, i.e. differently from that of the first author, claiming that “it is the order in which they are used today” (‘por sua ordem, seg[un]do o modo com que hoje se usão’) (f. 361), but provides a treatment of comparable length and completeness. And, although the section is lacking a clear title header, it is complete with its own traditional definition, “o adverbio [é] parte da oração […] [que] da força aos nomes, e aos verbos para significarem com mais energia” (ibid.), which is different, but equally as traditional, from that of the first author: cf. “O Adverbio he huma parte da Oração, que serve de declarar, esforçar mais a significação dos Verbos, e nomes, a que se ajunta; vg. Açó tenhé, Sem falta vou.” (f. 179). The parts of speech are not treated in the remaining portions of the work. |
| Innovations term. | “Pronomes extravagantes” (f. 132-135). The term is not used in earlier grammars. The author offers a definition as follows: “Ha outra casta de pronomes extravagantes, q[ue] são nascidos de adverbios” (f. 132). According to Zwartjes (2007, p. 69), this class of pronoun forms a complete description of the short, ambiguous list found in Figueira (1621, p. 85), labelling them as ‘extravagante’ because they surpass the classes of traditional grammar. He is explicit in his comparison of which pronouns are more common than others. |
| Corpus illustratif | The first author inserts 105 pages of verb charts at the beginning of the body of his grammar: The first conjugation, Jucá (f. 1-13), followed by the negative form of the verb, Jucái (f. 14-35), the so-called second conjugation, Jucá (f. 35-53), conjugation with ‘pronouns’, Maenduar (f. 54-63), followed by the negative form of the verb, Maenduar (f. 64-71), the conjugations for 13 irregular verbs (f. 72-105). This same author ends his work with two tables: A table with the prepositions, adverbs, interjections and conjunctions of the language (f. 217-222), and a table listing the verbs conjugated in the grammar (f. 223). He indicates the page at which each item can be found with no errors. Throughout the grammar, the author provides entire phrases, often including variants with their suggested degree of ‘politeness’. Both the first and second authors provide supplementary charts for the ‘articles’, ‘pronouns’ and the ‘dativos de proveito’. The first author inserts a thematic chart with vocabulary for relations, “Degrees of consanguinity” (‘Gráos de parentesco’) (Arte, f. II-IIIv), while the second inserts a thematic list for “The names of the parts of the body” (f. 356-359). This second author inserts an exhaustive description, with charts, for each class of adverb (f. 361-369). In addition to the traditional catechism and confessionary, the third hand offers a section with “Practical [expressions] to help [subjects] die well” (‘Practica p[ar]a ajudar a bem morrer’) (f. 399-406), however, the phrases are written monolingually, i.e. in Língua geral, without Portuguese translation. |
| Indications compl. | |
| Influence subie | In the work, the author of the grammatical section mentions one ‘Arte antiga’ (f. 148), although he is not any more specific as to which grammar he is referring (Zwartjes 2007, p. 59). Although the author shows a clear understanding of the Alvaristic model of grammar, Zwartjes (ibid., p. 70) suggests that “it is not so very probable that this anonymous author ever used the Latin grammar of Alvares”, instead it is more likely that he adopted it from the grammar tradition applied already in the printed grammars of Tupinambá, especially that of Figueira, Arte da lingua Brasílica (1621?). In addition to following the general mould, the author of this grammar also used a number of terms and even entire definitions almost verbatim the same as Figueira, and some parallels can be drawn, by proxy, with the work of Anchieta (1595) (see Zwartjes 2007). |
| Influence exercée | Given the heavily restricted circulation of this work, it is unlikely that this manuscript had a direct influence on later publications. It is possible that within the exclusive circles of the Jesuits at Pará, brought together in urban centres and colleges after the Pombaline expulsion from the Amazonian aldeias in 1759 (Lee 2005, p. 152), this and other similar works were circulated and consulted in forming the following generation of grammars. And, although this work contains information that is invaluable to the study of the development of the ‘Língua geral amazônica’, as Zwartjes (2011, p. 168) suggests, “[the grammar] has not been [analyzed] yet satisfactorily in the context of the history of linguistics”. |
| Renvois bibliographiques | Anchieta J. de 1595; Anonyme 1750; Anonyme 1771; Barros M. C. & Lessa A. L. 2004; Bettendorf J. F. 1910 {[1699]}; Boxer C. R. 1962; Daniel J. 1976 {[1757-1776]}; Dietrich W. 2014; Edelweiss F. G. 1969; Figueira L. 1621; Lee M. K. 2005; Moore D. 2014; Moore D., Facundes S. & Pires N. 1994; Rodrigues A. D. 1996; Velloso J. M. (éd.) 1800 {João Filippe Bettendorf [1699]}; Zwartjes O. 2007; Zwartjes O. 2011 |
| Rédacteur | Case, Justin · Zwartjes, Otto |
| Création ou mise à jour | 2017-11 |