The Personal Paradigms in Baure and Other Southern Arawakan Languages

Uma reconstrução do proto-mamoré-guaporé (família arawák)

“…D'Orbigny (1839: 275-276) foi o primeiro a observar uma estreita afinidade entre as línguas PAU e PAI, chegando a supor que seus falantes fariam parte de um mesmo grupo étnico, mas somente Rivet (1924) reuniu as línguas MOX, o PAI, o PAU e o BAU num mesmo subgrupo da família arawák, o qual denominou 'boliviano'. Sua classificação foi copiada por Schmidt (1926), que manteve a nomenclatura do subgrupo e incluiu o MUX, considerado por Danielsen (2011;2013) um membro das línguas MOX (cf. abaixo).…”

“…Este mesmo autor(Ramirez 2010: 31) afirma que o PAI é um dialeto BAU, mas não apresenta quaisquer dados que demonstrem tal suposição. Nenhum destes autores apresentou quaisquer dados suficientes para comprovar suas alegações Danielsen (2011. apud Danielsen & Terhart 2014, a partir de comparações lexicais e gramaticais preliminares, propõe a seguinte classificação:…”

On Terena (Arawakan) -pâho ‘mouth’: Etymology and Implications for Internal Classification

“…A branch of the Arawakan language family composed of Terena (including under this label other geographically or chronologically-defined varieties such as Kinikinau and Guaná; see Carvalho 2016a), spoken in southwestern Brazil, the Mojeño varieties (such as Ignaciano and Trinitario) and Baure, all spoken in Bolivia, is usually identified in classifications of the Arawakan languages (see Matteson 1972: 186-192, who does not include Mojeño; Kaufman 1994;Payne 1991: 489;Aikhenvald 1999: 67;Walker & Ribeiro 2010: 3;Campbell 2012: 75). Other, less well-attested languages such as Paunaka and Paikoneka are also assigned to this subgroup by other researchers (Danielsen 2011;Jolkesky 2016). The label Bolivia-Paraná was proposed for this group by Payne (1991) and I will retain this use in the present paper.…”

“…This claim should be taken with caution, however, not only due to the different methodologies and datasets employed in these studies, but also because no investigation has so far established this by identifying shared innovations and because other authors refrain from proposing any internal structure to this branch (see e.g. Aikhenvald 1999: 67;Danielsen 2011). The latest and most detailed study of these languages, Jolkesky (2016), does not consider Terena data, taking it as a premise that Mojeño, Paunaka, Paikoneka and Baure are more closely related to each other than any of these is to Terena.…”

“…Michael 2009;Campbell 2012). With this situation in mind, and seeking to complement more ambitious pioneering works such as Payne (1991), recent approaches to the historicalcomparative linguistics of the Arawakan family have proceeded in a bottom-up manner, reconstructing from small sets of closely related languages, with a finer understanding of the phonology and the morphology of the relevant languages yet, at the same time, keeping an eye open to broader issues, such as that of internal classification (Michael 2011;Danielsen 2011;Lawrence 2014;Jolkesky 2016;Carvalho 2015Carvalho , 2016aforthcoming).…”