Eduardo
Rivail Ribeiro
University of
Chicago &
Museu Antropológico/UFG,
Brazil
This
paper presents a reconstruction of the phonology, morphology, and a sample
lexicon of Proto-Jê, the common ancestor of more than a dozen languages spoken
in Brazil.
The Jê language family comprises three subgroups (Northern, Central, and
Southern), whose members are spoken from the Amazon region to the southernmost
state of Rio
Grande
do Sul. Although a reconstruction of Proto-Jê has been proposed earlier by
Davis
(1966), a number of issues remain to be solved. Although
Davis
made some lasting contributions (such as demonstrating that the
Southern
Jê
languages are indeed part of the family, a matter which had until then been the
subject of controversy), his reconstructions are, in many cases, flawed. This
can be attributed in part to the lack of accurate descriptions of most Jê
languages at the time. Since then, a number of additional descriptive materials
(including grammars and dictionaries) have appeared, thus providing the basis
for a more comprehensive reconstruction of the
proto-language.
The paper starts with a critical
assessment of Davis’ work,
pointing out some of the factors which may have contributed to hinder his
reconstruction (including the lack of morphological information, which lead to the postulation of erroneous phonological
correspondences). In certain cases, the revision of
Davis’
proto-forms is prompted by data from a ‘new’ language, Panará (Northern
Jê), the
historical descendant of Southern
Kayapó (which,
until the 1960s, was believed to be extinct). Since
Davis’
reconstruction has provided the basis for comparisons between Jê and other
families (such as Karajá, Maxakalí, Ofayé, Rikbaktsá, and
Krenák), this review has immediate
consequences for our understanding of the Macro-Jê stock. In addition,
the paper presents for the first time a reconstruction of Proto-Jê morphology,
with an account of the factors which lead to the restructuring of the original
paradigms in certain languages (such as the role of analogical leveling and phonological processes leading to morphological
erosion and homonymy). Furthermore, the paper offers a considerably larger
number of reconstructed forms, substantially improving the possibility of
finding additional cognates in other families and providing a glimpse into
Proto-Jê culture (revealing, for instance, lexical evidence for the existence of
weaving among the speakers of the proto-language). |