The rise and fall of approximants in the Tuparian languages

Ðàçìåùåíî íà http://allbest.ru

40

University of Brasilia

University of Sao Paulo

The rise and fall of approximants in the Tuparian languages

Audrey Nikulin, Rafael Andrade



Abstract

This paper addresses the evolution of the approximant series in the languages of the Tuparian branch of the Tupian family, native to the region comprised between the middle course of the Guaporé/Iténez and the headwaters of the Machado/Ji-Parana (southern Rondônia, Brazil). It is shown that in addition to the approximant series of Proto-Tuparian (which, we argue, comprised *ß, *j, *w), some daughter languages created innovative approximants from a variety of sources, such as non-low vowels (*o/*i), post-oralized nasals (*mb/*nd/*yg, by the way of *b/*d/*g), and hiatus-filling glides. The evolution of these sounds is discussed in great detail; in particular, we argue that at least some approximants have been historically forti- tioned in all Tuparian languages. A special attention is given to the subgrouping of the Tuparian branch.

Keywords: Tuparian languages; Tupian languages; approximants; fortition; comparative method.



Introduction

This paper examines the phonological development of the approximant series throughout the reconstructed history of the Tuparian languages (Tupian family), a group of indigenous languages spoken in what is now the Brazilian state of Rondônia. We will argue that Proto- Tuparian inherited a series of approximants (*ß, *j, *w) from its ancestor, Proto-Tupian, which were later subject to massive fortition processes in the history of all contemporary Tuparian languages. In addition, we hypothesize that some Tuparian languages innovated at some point by creating approximants from two types of Proto-Tuparian sources: non-low vowels (*o, *i) and postoralized nasals (*mb, *nd, and *yg).

The Tupian language family is one of the most diversified and geographically disperse genetic units of South America. Its approximately 50 languages are spoken throughout a vast area which spans from the northern Amazon to the extreme south of Brazil and are classified into ten universally recognized low-level branches: Arikém, Tupari, Mondé, Ramarama, Pu- rubora, Munduruku, Juruna, Sateré-Mawé, Aweti, and Tupi-Guarani (Rodrigues & Cabral 2012). Recent studies have shown that Ramarama and Purubora likely constitute a valid clade (Galucio & Gabas Jr. 2002), as do Sateré-Mawé, Aweti, and Tupi-Guarani (Aweti and Tupi- Guarani are more closely related to each other than any of them to Sateré-Mawé; Corrêa-da- Silva 2010, Meira & Drude 2015). From a geographic point of view, the genetic diversity within the family reaches its peak in what is now the Brazilian state of Rondônia, which has therefore been identified as the likely Urheimat of Proto-Tupian (Rodrigues 1958: 683).

The Tuparian branch -- also known in earlier literature as Kanoé (Rodrigues 1958: 682), Mekens (Hanke et al. 1958: 188), or Makurâp/Macurâp (Loukotka 1963: 45, 1968: 122) after different members of the branch (both Kanoé and Mekens refer to the language now known as

Mekéns or Sakurabiat) -- includes the following languages. Wayoro (Glottocode [wayo128], ISO 639-3 [wyr]) is spoken in the Terra Indïgena Rio Guaporé by three elderly speakers at the time of writing (Nogueira 2019: 3). Nogueira (2019: 4) also reports lexical and phonological differences between the varieties traditionally spoken by the Kupndiiriat and Ngwayoroiat groups. Tupari (Glottocode [tupa1250], ISO 639-3 [tpr]) is spoken by 350 individuals in two reservations, Terra Indfgena Rio Branco and Terra Indïgena Rio Guaporé (Singerman 2018: 1). Mekéns (= Sakirabiat, Sakurabiat; Glottocode [saki1248], ISO 639-3 [skf]) is spoken by 14 individuals in the Terra Indïgena Rio Mekéns (Galucio & Nogueira 2018: 96). Although the language has been increasingly referred to as Sakurabiat in recent literature, here we reserve the label Sakurabiat for the dialect spoken by the Sakurabiat and Guarategayat groups. In contrast, the label Mekéns is used in a broader sense throughout this paper and covers the varieties spoken by the Guaratira and the Siok- weriat (in addition to the one spoken by the Sakurabiat and the Guarategayat). It is subdivided into three dialects, including Sakurabiat/Guarategayat, Guaratira, and Siokweriat (= Kampé, now spoken by just one individual). Akuntsu (Glottocode [akun1241], ISO 639-3 [aqz]) is spoken by three individuals near the Omerê creek (Aragon & Tavares 2019). Makurap (Glottocode [maku1278], ISO 639-3 [mpu]) is spoken by ca. 50 individuals in the Terra Indïgena Guaporé (Galucio & Nogueira 2018: 96).

Until recently, the languages of the Tuparian branch had remained severely underdocumented. Tibor Sekelj documented short wordlists of Tupari and Makurap during his 1948 expedition to the Rio Branco (Sekelj 1948). Emil-Heinrich Snethlage traveled around the region in 1933-4 and made notes on all Tuparian languages except Akuntsu (Snethlage 2015). Wanda Hanke visited the Mekéns in 1949 and also made some notes on the language (Hanke et al. 1958). Franz Caspar stayed with the Tupari for several months in 1948 and 1955; based on his fieldnotes, a grammar sketch was prepared in 1958 (translated into Portuguese and published as Rodrigues & Caspar 2017). Other premodern sources on specific Tuparian languages include Anonymous (n/d, on Wayoro, apud Lou- kotka 1963: 46-7), Becker-Donner (1955, on Mekéns, apud Loukotka 1963: 48), Xerez (1946, on Makurap), and Lévi- Strauss (n/d, on the Kabisiana variety of Mekéns, apud Loukotka 1963: 48 and Lévi-Strauss 1950; see Nikulin sub-mitted for the identification of Kabisiana as a Mekéns variety). We were unable to access any of these works. Fortunately, the situation has improved drastically over the last 30 years due to a documentation boom in Amazonian linguistics. The following recent works have been prioritized as primary sources of lexical data used in this study. For Wayoro, we rely on the works by Nogueira (2011, 2015, 2019). For Tupari, we give preference to Singer- man's (2018) dissertation and to Alves's (2004) dictionary (especially when it comes to the position of the stress). As for Mekéns, Galucio's (1994, 2001, 2002, 2011a,b, 2014; Galucio et al. 2017; Alves & Galucio 2007) works have been consulted for the Sakurabiat and Guaratira dialects, whereas for the Siokweriat dialect the short appendix in Aragon (2014) was used. This latter work has also been our primary source for Akuntsu, though earlier works by the same author (Aragon & Carvalho 2007, Aragon 2008) as well as Gabas Jr. (2005) were also consulted. Finally, for Makurap we rely on Braga (1992, 2005) as well as on unpublished recordings by Denny Moore (collected in 2003 with the help of the consultant Alcides Makurap). In addition, lexical material has been extracted from the comparative works on Tuparian (presented below) whenever the relevant forms are not attested in our primary sources. For kinship terms in all Tuparian languages, we rely on Nogueira et al. (2019).

To this moment, however, few works have been dedicated to the phonological reconstruction of Proto-Tuparian. Aragon & Cabral (2005) and Gabas Jr. (2005) also discuss the genetic relations within the Tuparian family (with special attention to the position of Akuntsu), but no claim is made with respect to the phonological recon-struction. Galucio & Nogueira (2018) reconstruct the evolution of the object focus construction in the Tuparian languages. Nogueira et al. (2019) is an in-depth study of the Tuparian kinship terms, which also includes recon-structed forms; the phonological reconstruction in this work does not differ substantially from that of Galucio & Nogueira (2012). Moore & Galucio (1994) offer a pioneering proposal of the segmental phonology of Proto-Tuparian, which is based on a total of 124 cognate sets representing Way- oro, Tupari, Mekéns, and Makurap; the respective reconstructed forms are also provided. Galucio & Nogueira's (2012) work by and large reinforces Moore & Galucio's (1994) reconstruction, differing from it mainly in that (i) the segment *nd(z) is removed from the reconstructed inventory; (ii) the phonological status of *b as a contrastive segment, treated as uncertain in Moore & Galucio (1994), is confirmed; (iii) the data of a fifth Tuparian language, Akuntsu, are taken into account. Furthermore, Galucio & Nogueira (2012) argue that the Proto-Tuparian segment *D (the ad hoc symbol used in Moore & Galucio 1994) should be interpreted as a voiced denti-alveolar stop *d. Galucio & Nogueira (2012) also address the reconstruction of aspects of Proto-Tuparian morphosyntax, including the person inflection and the morphosyntactic alignment, as well as derivational morphology. Due to the nature of the publication, the segment reconstructed by Galucio & Nogueira (2012) as *d is the only one to be supported with detailed discussion and examples. The cognate sets that were used to substantiate the reconstruction of all other segments are not presented. That way, the only published work on the phonology of Proto-Tuparian in which the reconstructed phonemes are illustrated with actual linguistic data is Moore & Galucio (1994), which predates the documentation boom of the Tuparian languages by a large margin.

An in-depth study of the historical phonology of the Tuparian group, besides being an interesting subject by itself, is crucial for our understanding of the diachronic development of the entire Tupian family (cf. Galucio & Nogueira 2018: 95). Although there have been pioneering attempts at a phonological reconstruction of Proto-Tupian (Rodrigues 2002, 2005, 2007), most subgroups of Tupian have been represented in them by one single contemporary language (Tupari for the Tuparian group, Munduruku for the Munduruku group, Yudja for the Juruna group) rather than by the respective intermediate proto-languages (with the notable exception of Proto-TupbGuaram). In other words, the comparative method has never been consistently applied to the Tupian family in a bottom-up manner. The situation, however, is likely to change in the near future, thanks to several recent and ongoing detailed, methodologically sound diachronic studies of low-level branches of Tupian (most recently Meira & Drude 2015 for Proto-Mawé-Guarani, Carvalho 2019 for Proto-Juruna, Picanço 2019 for Proto- Munduruku, Carvalho forthc. for Proto-TupbGuaram). In this sense, this paper aims to contribute to the emergent field of diachronic Tupian studies in general by reconstructing parts of the consonantal system of Proto-Tuparian in some detail.

The International Phonetic Alphabet is used for representing data in this paper, with the following exceptions. The symbols r, ß, â, ó, and e stand for [r, ß, ö, ù, º], respectively. The coda consonants are considered to be underspecified for features other than place of articulation in all Tuparian languages (cf. Singerman 2016 for Tupari). Underspecified labial, dental/ alveolar, palatal, and velar consonants in coda are represented in small caps: P, T, C, K (cf. a similar analytical decision for another Tupian language, Aweti, in Drude 2009). The acute accent denotes stress in Tupari and Akuntsu and high tone in Makurap. The evidence for two level tones in Makurap (high and low) comes from our preliminary analysis of the Makurap recordings by Moore, wherein most words are conveniently accompanied by their whistled equivalents (cf. Moore & Galucio 1994: 122). The high tone occurs at most once in polysyllables, and its position interacts with morphology in ways that are currently poorly understood (e.g. pario [pi^Hnö^L] `hawk' ^ pänö-cato [pi<sup>L</sup>nö<sup>H</sup>ca<sup>L</sup>'t:o<sup>L</sup>] `harpia'). We do not mark the low tone explicitly. Makurap tokens taken from printed sources which do not tran-scribe the tonal distinctions (such as Braga 1992, 2005) are underlined.

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. In section 2, we present some evidence for the subgrouping of the Tuparian group accepted in this paper. In section 3, we present the comparative evidence which supports the reconstruction of the approximant series for Proto-Tuparian as well as for the proto-languages of shallower genetic units, such as ProtoCore Tuparian and Proto-Corumbiara, and for an earlier stage of Wayoro. Specific sound changes required by our proposal are summarized in section 4. We conclude by a succinct discussion of our findings in section 5, followed by a list of abbreviations used in this paper.



1. Internal classification of the Tuparian group

In this section, we present evidence for a specific proposal regarding the subgrouping of the Tuparian group. Namely, we claim that (i) Wayoro and Tupari form a subgroup to the exclusion of other languages (“Wayoro-Tupari”), (ii) Mekéns and Akuntsu likewise form a subgroup to the exclusion of other languages (“Corumbiara”), and (iii) all the aforementioned languages form a clade (“Core Tuparian”) to the exclusion of Makurap.

Makurap vs. Core Tuparian. The claim regarding the binary split of Proto-Tuparian into Makurap and Core Tuparian has found extensive support in a number of published works (cf. the lexicostatistical assessment in Galucio & Nogueira 2012, Galucio et al. 2015: 238), even though little space has been allocated so far to the identification of innovations shared by the Core Tuparian languages. The most characteristic of them are listed below.

One such innovation appears to have affected the third person inflection pattern of the */j/-initial stems. In Makurap, a significant number of stems inflect for the third person by replacing their initial consonant (c- in oral environments; p- is nasal environments) with another consonant (t- both in oral and nasal environments), as in ceK `house.POSS', paC `tooth' ^ t-eK `his/her house', t-ac `his/her tooth' (Braga 2005). Braga (1992, 2005) transcribes the palatal obstruent of Makurap as tf. In Moore's field recordings of Ma-kurap, we found its pronunciation closer to [c] or [cç]. Throughout this paper, it will be represented as c. A plausibly cognate pattern is found in Tupian languages outside the Tuparian group, such as Munduruku (dak-?a, ndj ^ t-dk-?a, t-dj; Picanço 2005), Kuruaya (l--> t-), Sateré-Mawé (s--> h-), and most Tupi-Guarani languages (*t-/*-r > *ts-). This allows us to project the pattern attested in Makurap onto the Proto-

Tuparian level (we reconstruct PTpr *j-/*p--> *c-, where *p is the nasal allophone of */j/). All other Tuparian languages lost the archaic prefix *c- and now use reflexes of PTpr *i- in this function. For example, the third person of PTpr *ja?iP `son, fraternal nephew (male ego)' (> Makurap caiP) is reconstructed as *c-a?iP (> Makurap t-aiP). In Proto-Core Tuparian, the unpossessed form yielded *öa?iP (> Wayoro ndauP, Tupari ha?uP, Mekéns/Akuntsu taiP); see 3.1 for PTpr *j > Proto-Core Tuparian *ö. However, the third person form was not preserved as *c-a?iP but rather was substituted with *i-öa?iP (> Tupari i-a?iP, Mekéns i-taiP, etc.). The allo- morph *i- must have been extended through analogy from other consonant-initial stems.

Another clear innovation that identifies Core Tuparian as a valid genetic unit is the nasalization of the stops *p and *t in syllables with nasal nuclei, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Nasalization of *p, *t in the Core Tuparian languages in nasal environments

PTpr	gloss	Wayoro	Tupari	Mekéns	Akuntsu	Makurap
*pär-	to be tied				--	pär-
*pär-?a-	to tie				mära-	pärä-
*pf.r	humming bird	Mir mir `penis'	mir	--	mir	pi:r
*äräpirä	woman	ärämirä	ärämirä	ärämirä	ärämirä	äräpijä The correspondence between Core Tuparian *r and Makurap j is not known to be regular. Hereinafter, the curled brackets denote material which is deemed not to be cognate despite not being de-monstrably segmentable in the contemporary languages. The form is tentatively phonologized based on Snethlage's (2015: 518) attestation of <kina kiwaminja> `Ell-bogen' (likely the first person inclusive ki-{nekiwa}mipa). This root appears to have been lost in Makurap, unless metiä `ashamed' (Braga 2005: 191) is somehow re-lated. A voiceless dental stop is reconstructed in light of the external cognates (Proto-Mawé-Guarani *ti `ashamed', Meira & Drude 2015: 292). In Mekéns and Akuntsu, the only attested forms of these verbs contain the theme vowel -a, which triggers the deletion of the stem-final -K. The underlying stem is expected to have the shape niK- in both Corumbiara lan-guages, but the forms that could prove it have not been attested in the published works. No cognate is attested in Makurap. A voiceless dental stop is reconstructed in light of the external cognates, such as Sateré-Mawé tiK `spotted' (Ribeiro 2010: 87). The Mekéns reflex is attested as atiK in Galucio et al. (2015: 266) but not in other sources on the language that we consulted. If the existence of this form is confirmed, it could be explained as a borrowing from Makurap atiK or from Karo atip, attested ibidem (the Makurap reflex is given there as ati, which must be a mistranscription, cf. Braga 2005: 184 and Moore's field data). Note that Akuntsu -P does not regularly continue PTpr *-K.
*-pW	knee	iku}miä	miäiK-?ä}	inêkiwa}mipa `elbow'8	ia}minä	ika}piä
*päri(o)	harpia	--	poila-märi	--	--	päriio}
*¹	ashamed	ni-	ni-	--	--	--
*atiP	head	--	anuP `brain'	aniP	anäP	ätiP `hair'
*tiK-10	to weave	niK-	niK-	ni-a	ni-a	tiK-
*fiKu	spotted	niK~niK	niK	--	niK `striped'	--
*ti(:)K	timbo vine	niK	ni(:)K	--	--	tiK
*atiK12	worm	aniK	aniK `leishmaniasis ulcer'	Sio aniK	aniP	atiK

In turn, Core Tuparian is subdivided, in a binary manner, into Mekéns-Akuntsu and Wayoro-Tupari.

The former claim seems to be universally accepted (Gabas Jr. 2005; Galucio & Nogueira 2012), as Mekéns and Akuntsu are remarkably close to each other and are reported to be mutually intellegible (Galucio et al. 2015: 237-8 even suggest that they are “co-dialects of the same language”).

We propose the label Corumbiara for the clade which comprises Mekéns and Akuntsu. As for Wayoro and Tupari, the special proximity between these two languages has been suggested in Galucio et al. (2015) based on an application of two distance-based algorithms to the 100-word Swadesh lists of the Tupian languages (83.7% confidence rate), but this result was not replicated for other datasets considered in the cited work. In what follows, we identify several shared innovations which support the validity of both branches (Corumbiara and Wayoro-Tupari).

Corumbiara. The Corumbiara languages (Mekéns and Akuntsu) share multiple lexical innovations which are unique to these two languages.

The following are some examples thereof: PTpr *yge `garden' is replaced with Mekéns/Akuntsu tabir `garden'; PTpr *pgitaK ~ *pgitaK `night' is replaced with *matso (Mekéns mätsoipi}, Akuntsu mätfo); PTpr *mapi `manioc' is replaced with *taPjVr (Mekéns taPtsir, Akuntsu taPtor); PTpr *ekiP `arrow' is replaced with *mäpi `arrow' (likely from Kwaza mäßi or Kanoê mapi; cf. Voort 2005: 386). Some further examples of lexical isoglosses specific to the Corumbiara languages are *tsaro `yellow', *pi(:)K `black', and *kicpiT `fish', though we have been unable to provide an unequivocal Proto-Tuparian reconstruction for these specific concepts.

In addition, the Corumbiara languages share multiple phonological innovations, some of which are exclusive to this subgroup (e.g. PTpr *t/*nd > *ts > Mekéns ts, Akuntsu tf; PTpr *j/*c > *t > Mekéns t, Akuntsu t; PTpr *i(?)V > *ijV > Sakurabiat itsV, Guaratira/Siokweriat iV, Akuntsu itV). Most phonological innovations that characterize the languages of the Corumbiara branch will be discussed in more detail in section 3.

Wayoro-Tupari. Wayoro and Tupari are not as tightly related to each other as Mekéns and Akuntsu, but nevertheless clear innovations shared exclusively by these two languages can be identified.

For example, PTpr *mbo-ape `fingernail' and *ojaT `fire', whose reflexes are found in Makurap, Mekéns, and Akuntsu, are replaced with Proto-Wayoro-Tupari *kmpa `fingernail' and *akoP-k-aP `fire', respectively (the latter is evidently an *-aP nominalization from a verbal derivative of *akoP `hot').

Wayoro and Tupari are also unique in that they have high central rounded vowels /è U/ (Alves 2004: 41; Singerman 2016: 456; Nogueira 2019: 10), which correspond to /³ 1/ in Mekéns, Akuntsu, Makurap, and many Tupian languages outside the Tuparian branch. In both languages, /è i/ pattern together in that they make up the environment for at least one phonological process (the diachronic assibilation *t > s _/u,i/ in Tupari; the morphophonological dissimilation /e/ ^ a _/u,i/ in Wayoro, cf. Nogueira 2015).



2. Proposal

In this section, we present the evidence which supports the reconstruction of the approximant series in Proto-Tuparian (3.1). We will also show how innovative approximants arose from various sources through multiple independent innovations in individual Tuparian languages (from non-syllabic vowels, 3.2), in early Wayoro (from postoralized nasals, 3.3), and in Proto- Corumbiara (3.4, as hiatus-filling glides). Note that in the contemporary Tuparian languages most of the segments under discussion have changed to some other sounds (either through fortition or through lenition). For example, PTpr *eji `marico bag' and *wawo `sweet potato' are reflected as Wayoro endu, pg^wago; Tupari éu, wao; Mekéns eti, k^wa(:)ko; Akuntsu eti, k^wako; Makurap éci, ßaßo. For now, these examples should suffice to give the reader a flavor of the trends in the evolution of the approximants in the individual histories of the Tuparian languages. A detailed discussion thereof is deferred to section 4.Note that in this paper we do not discuss the consonants that arose from combinations of an underspecified consonant in the coda position followed by an onsetless or a ?-initial syllable. In these environments, codas are commonly resyllabified as onsets in the contemporary Tuparian languages, which is usually accompanied by lenition (Braga 1992: 63-4 for Makurap; Galucio 1994: 991-2, 2001: 23 for Mekéns; Singerman 2018: 372-3, 378-80 for Tupari, among others). An investigation of the approximants that may have developed in some languages through resyllabification of codas lies beyond the scope of this paper.

In Table 2, we summarize our proposal regarding the development of the Proto-Tuparian onsets in oral environments. Note that *[mb], *[nd], and *[qg] are held here to be allophones of underlying */m n q/ in oral environments (see 3.3).

In Table 3, we summarize our proposal regarding the development of the Proto-Tuparian onsets in nasal environments. Note that *[p] is held here to be the nasal allophone of an underlying */j/.



Table 2. Proto-Tuparian onsets and their reflexes in oral environments

PTpr	Mak	PCT	pre-PCor	Mek/Aku	PWT	Tup	pre-Way	Way
*p	P	*p	*p	p	*p	ps-/-Ps-A	*p	p
*[mb]	[mb]	*b			*b/13 Although PTpr *c certainly occurred in nasal environments (as in *mïco `curassow', *c-äC `his/her tooth', c-êrï `his/her hammock' > Mak mïto, t-äC, t-êrï), we have not identified reflexes of any of these word forms in any Core Tuparian language.ß		*ß	[mb]-/-ß-
*ß	P	*ß	*b	b
*t	t	*t	*t	Mek ts,	*t	t, sB	*t	t
*[nd]	[nd]	*d		Aku tj"	*d		*0	[nd]
*j	c	*0	*d	t	*0	h-/-0-
*c	t	*c	*c		*c	0	*tj	tj
*k	k	*k	*k	k	*k	k	*k	k
*[qg]	tog]	*g			*g		*y	[0g]
*w	ß	*w, *yC	*gw, *gC	kw, kC	*w, *yC	w, 0C	*w, *yC	[qgw], [qg]C Kup ß
*r	r	*r	*r	r	*r	r	*r	r
*1	1 ~ 0	*1	*1 ~ *0	1 ~ 0	*1	1	*1 ~ *0	1 ~ 0

^A = before i; ^B = before i or u; ^C = before a rounded vowel

Table 3. Proto-Tuparian onsets and their reflexes in nasal environments

PTpr	Mak	PCT	pre-PCor	Mek/Aku	PWT	Tup	pre-Way	Way
*p	p	*m	*m	m	*m	m	*m	m
*m	m
*t	t	*n	*n		*n		*n
*n	n
*[p]	ã	*ã	ã	ã	*ã	Ã, 0A	*ã	ã
*c	t	?13	?	?	?	?	?	?
*k	k	*k	*k	k	*k	k	*k	k
*0g	Og	*g			*g		*y	q
*w	m	*w, *yB	*gW, *gB	kw (Sak qw), k (Sak o)B	*w, *yB	w, 0B	*w, *yB	qw, qB
*r	r	*r	*r, *nC	r, nC	*r	r	*r	r
*1	1 ~ 0	*1	*1 ~ *0	1 ~ 0	*1	1	*1 ~ *0	1 ~ 0

^A = before ³; ^B = before a rounded vowel; ^C = between front vowels



A note on the reconstruction of PTpr *t. Although a detailed discussion of the reconstruction of Proto-Tuparian voiceless segments is beyond the scope of this paper, we deem it appropriate to briefly comment on our interpretation of the sound correspondence between Wayoro t, Tupari t (s _/i,u/), Mekéns ts, Akuntsu tf, and Makurap t. Galucio & Nogueira (2012) claim that the correspondence set in question “clearly reconstructs as the affricate *ts, which becomes [+palatal] in Akuntsu, and loses the feature [+sibilant] in Wayoro, Makurap and Tupari, except before [i] in Tupari”. In fact, the sibilant reflex in Tupari is conditioned not only by _i, but also by _u (as in suT `peach palm', suT- `to cook' < PTpr *tiT, *tiT-). We believe that the reconstruction should be amended to *t for four reasons.

(i) First of all, reconstructing *ts would imply an innovation (*ts > t) shared by Makurap, Tupari, and Wayoro, though Makurap is not known to be closely related to Tupari and Wayoro. No such problem arises if *t is reconstructed; in this case, we would only need to assume that PTpr *t yielded an affricate in the Corumbiara languages.

(ii) Note that what we reconstruct as *[nd] (the oral allophone of PTpr */n/) also yielded an affricate in Mekéns/Akuntsu and t (s before non-back high vowels) in Tupari. In our current proposal, this is straightforwardly accounted for: all PTpr postoralized nasals (*mb, *nd, *pg) became voiced stops in Proto-Core Tuparian (*b, *d, *g), which subsequently merged with PTpr voiceless stops (*p, *t, *k) in the Corumbiara languages (yielding *p, *ts, *k) and in Tupari (p/(p)s, t/s, k). No elegant explanation of the sort is available if one accepts the reconstruction of PTpr *ts.

(iii) There is no competing identity correspondence that could potentially involve PTpr *t in onsets, except for two isolated etymologies: `chicha' (Wayoro tuero, Mekéns tiero, Akuntsu tiero) and `daughter' (Tupari haK, Wayoro, Mekéns, Akuntsu, Makurap taK). The former item is a Wanderwort (compare Arikapu t/uerd, Kanoê tsero; Voort 2005: 381, fn. 28, 2007: 138, fn. 4) and is thus likely to have diffused into at least some of the Tuparian languages through horizontal transmission. As for the word for `daughter', the correspondence is unique and thus cannot back up alone the reconstruction of PTpr *t. In fact, it is possible to reconstruct *caK (no other examples for *c- in the word-initial position are known, so the reflexes h- in Tupari and tin Wayoro could be regular).

(iv) Finally, the external correspondences of what we reconstruct as PTpr *t are dental/alveolar stops throughout the Tupian family (Karitiana, Karo, Proto-Mawé-Guarani (*)t, Purub- orâ d, as well as t alternating with n in the Mondé languages), even though admittedly affricate reflexes are also attested in non-palatalizing environments in languages such as Yudjâ (tf-), Munduruku (tf-/-dy), Kuruaya (tf-) and Proto-Tupi-Guarani (*ts ~ *tf). At least Proto-Tupi- Guarani demonstrably innovated its affricate from Proto-Mawé-Guarani *t, as shown not only by external comparanda (Meira & Drude 2015) but also by the fact that the Proto-Tupi- Guarani affricate *ts changes to *nd in the environment *V_ (cf. *tso `to go' and its causative *mo-ndo `to send').

(v) Together, all these facts point to Proto-Tupian *t as the probable ancestor of what we reconstruct as PTpr *t, making our reconstruction more credible. For examples and a detailed discussion of the reflexes of Proto-Tupian *t, see Nikulin and Carvalho (2019: 276-8).

Proto-Tuparian approximants. In this section, we justify the reconstruction of three approximant phonemes for Proto- Tuparian: */ß/, */j/, and */w/. All of these appear to have been straightforwardly retained from Proto-Tupian *ß, *j, and *w. Preceding nasal nuclei, */j/ was realized as a nasal stop *[q], which is retained in all contemporary languages (unlike the oral allophone [j], which underwent major changes in all daughter languages; see below). In our reconstructions, we represent the al- lophones of ¹⁵ In addition, Meira & Drude (2015: 295) give PTG *taßa `village', but a more correct reconstruction would be taP (cf. Mello 2000: 195), of which *taß-a is an inflected form (the so called argumentative case). Its Tuparian cognate is *ja(:)P `village'. Meira & Drude (2015: 294) also note that PTG *tßö `to shoot' has a cognate in Aweti and recon-struct Proto-Aweti-Guarani *(?)ißö, but no cognate is known in Sateré-Mawé./j/ as *j and *p, respectively, in order to highlight the fact that their default reflexes in all daughter languages are so different from each other that they are no longer syn- chronically analyzed as allophones of the same phoneme. As for the labiovelar approximant */w/, it is likely that it was phonetically nasalized in nasal environments (i.e., [w]); this is, however, not represented in our reconstructions, because in most contemporary languages the reflexes of *[w] and *[w] are reasonably similar to each other. The bilabial approximant */ß/ is not attested in nasal environments, which may be a spurious gap, given that */ß/ is an extremely rare segment in our corpus.

All Proto-Tuparian approximants, with the exception of the nasal allophone of */j/, were frequent targets of multiple fortition (and, to a lesser degree, lenition) processes, which operated in the history of each contemporary language to differing extents.

These will be systematized in section 4. Nevertheless, the directionality of each sound change can be quite securely identified thanks to converging internal and external evidence, so that in each case one can be sure that the segments in question were indeed articulated as approximants in Proto-Tuparian. In subsections 3.2-4, we will discuss a number of correspondence sets for which the contrary holds: segments other than approximants (such as nasal stops or high vowels) are reconstructed for Proto-Tuparian, and it is shown that they gave rise to innovative approxi- mants in specific languages or subgroups of Tuparian.

PTpr *ß. In Table 4, we show both secure etymologies which instantiate PTpr *ß. The original articulation is preserved in Wayoro only. In Tupari and Makurap, PTpr *ß merged with PTpr *p, yielding Tup p (-Ps- before i) and Mak p. In the Corumbiara languages, PTpr *ß is reflected as b.

Despite the extreme scarcity of the relevant cognate sets, the reconstruction of PTpr *ß gains some credibility in light of the fact that it corresponds to Proto-Tupi-Guarani *ß, as in PTG *toßa `face' and *ißitu `wind' (~ PTpr *jeßa, *ißijo; cf. Mello 2000: 183, 207). Note that PTG *ß is also a low-frequency segment (at least morpheme-internally): in Meira & Drude's (2015) corpus of Mawé-Guarani etymologies, it appears only in PTG *urußu `vulture' (~ PTpr *oroP?o), *jaßoti `tortoise' (no cognate in Tuparian), in the aforementioned *toßa `face' and *ißitu `wind', as well as in *aßati `maize', borrowed from a Cariban or other North Amazonian source (Rodrigues 1985: 389).¹⁵

Table 4. Proto-Tuparian */ß/ (oral *ß, unattested in nasal environments)

PTpr	gloss	Wayoro	Tupari	Mekéns	Akuntsu	Makurap
oral
*jeßa	forehead	--	épa `eye'	--	eba-pé	cépa
	CT only:
*jeßa-jopaP	eye (*jopaP `grain')	eßa-paP	--	eba-opaP	eba-pâP	--
*jeßa-pi	face (*pi `inner')	--	épa-Psi	Sio eba-pi	eba-pi	--
*ißijo	wind	--	uPsiô	--	--	--

In our current proposal, PTpr *ß is reflected as p in Makurap, thus paralleling the fortition and devoicing of PTpr *j to Makurap c (see below). We have also considered an alternative scenario, whereby PTpr *ß would have been regularly preserved in Makurap as ß. This possibility is prompted by Nogueira et aUs (2019: 39, 41) reconstruction of two kinship terms: PTpr *aßi `father (vocative)' (> Way aßi, Tup aPsi, Mek abi(-toP), Mak aßa) and *aßatso `grandfather' (> Way eßato, Mek abatso, Aku abatjo, Mak aßato).

Regarding the former term, note that Makurap a is not a regular reflex of PTpr *i, which entails that Proto-Core Tuparian *aßi is likely not to be cognate with Mak aßa. As for the term for `grandfather', there is evidence that the reconstruction should be amended to *joP-ato (literally `father-big'), with an irregular development of the root vowel *o in all languages except in the Tupari compound mëPsir-ob-atô `father- in-law (female ego), lit. son's grandfather' (cf. ha?uP-b-atô `father-in-law (male ego)', in which the same vowel was irregularly lost). That way, the bilabial approximant found in Way eßato or Mak aßato arose through resyllabification of a coda *p. As noted above, we are not concerned with such resyllabified approximants in this paper for lack of space.

PTpr */j/. The reader has already seen that we take PTpr *j and *p to be surface realizations of PTpr */j/ in oral and nasal environments, respectively. While *p retained its articulation in all daughter languages, *j shows more divergent reflexes. We assume that it preserved its palatal articulation in Makurap but became a voiceless affricate in this language (thus, PTpr *j > Mak c). In Proto-Core Tuparian, conversely, it appears to have preserved its manner of articulation but changed its place of articulation from palatal to dental (that is, PTpr *j > PCT *3). Note that unconditional dentalization of *j to 3 is known from the phonological histories of many Amazo-nian languages, such as Shiwilu (Kawapanan; Valenzuela Bismarck 2011: 279-80) and Guarasugwe (Tupi-Guarani < Tupian; Ramirez et al. 2017: 432). In Kubeo (Tukanoan), the reflex of Proto-Tukanoan *j is realized as [Ö] between non-high vowels (Chacon 2014: 65sqq). Several Cariban languages, such as Venezuelan Kari'na, Pemon, and Ma- kuxi, reflect Proto-Cariban *j as [Ö] at least in some environments. We know of no Amazonian language in which an opposite development (i.e., *3 > j) would be claimed to have taken place in a non-palatalizing environment (an anonymous reviewer rightly remarks that outside the Americas, such a development is attested between vowels in many Turkic languages). This yields additional support for our hypothesis regarding PTpr *j > PCT *3. In Wayoro, PCT *3 became an underlying nasal stop /n/ (which surfaces as [nd] in oral environments), which parallels precisely other developments reconstructed for this language: PCT *w > Way /q(^w)/ (see below in this subsection), PCT *o- > pre-Way *ß- > Way /m-/ (see 3.2), and PCT *i- > pre-Way *j- > Way /p-/ (see 3.2). In Tupari, one finds the reflex h- word- initially and -0- word-internally. In the Corumbiara languages, PCT *3 became a homorganic stop t, as all other approximants (*ß > b; *w > k(^w); *j > Mek ts/Aku t; see this subsection and 3.4).

The correspondence Way nd ~ Tup h/0 ~ Mek/Aku t ~ Mak c has not been previously claimed to continue the same underlying segment of Proto-Tuparian as the correspondence Way/Tup/Mek/Aku/Mak p. Important evidence for lumping them together comes not only from the fact that they occur in a complementary distribution (in oral vs. nasal environments, respectively), but also from the fact that their reflexes in Makurap show identical behavior when they occur as the initial segments of relational stems. Namely, both Mak c- and p- may derive relational stems from absolute ones (e.g. eK `house', ërï `hammock' ^ c-eK `house.POSS', p-ën `hammock.POSS'; Braga 2005: 48sqq.). In addition, whenever these segments occur in the beginning of a relational stem (either derived from an absolute stem or underived), they are replaced with the 3^rd person prefix t-. External evidence unequivocally shows that the correspondences Way nd ~ Tup h/0 ~ Mek/Aku t ~ Mak c, on the one hand, and Way/Tup/Mek/ Aku/Mak p, on the other hand, go back to a single consonant of Proto-Tupian.

For example, in Karo, both correspond to j (e.g. Proto-Tuparian *jajo `armadillo', *jaote `peccary', *ja(:)ko `lizard', *jao `stingray', *pac `tooth', *waktpa `agouti', *pökär `toucan' ~ Karo jajo, jate, ja?o, jaw, jaj, wakäja, jokän; data from Gabas Jr. 1999). In Proto-Munduruku, the regular correspondence is *3 (e.g. Proto-Tuparian *jajo `armadillo', *jaote `peccary', *ja(:)ko `lizard', *jakeK `army ant', *pac `tooth', *pöK `chigoe flea', *ð¸ò `faeces' ~ Proto-Munduruku *öajöo(?), *öa}e(?), *ôâ?o, *öa?ik, *öäj, *ööy, *öän; Picanço 2019). In Proto-Tupi-Guarani, the default correspondence in the word- initial position is *t- (e.g. PTpr *jajo `armadillo', *jakeK `army ant', *pac `tooth', *pöK `chigoe flea', *pökäT `toucan' ~ PTG *tatu, *ta?oK, *täc, *tüK, *tükäT; cf. Mello 2000).

In Table 5, we list all known Proto-Tuparian tokens which instantiate PTpr *j and do not show significant irregularities in the development of this consonant in the daughter languages. In a subset of relational stems, an unexpected correspondence occurs between Core Tuparian vowel-initial stems and Makurap c- or p-initial stems. It is worthy of note that all such stems are, at the very least, disyllabic. We reconstruct their PTpr etyma as */j/-initial and posit a shared innovation for Core Tuparian, which consists in an almost regular loss of stem-initial */j/ at the left margin of polysyllabic relational stems.

We have been so far unable to explain why some polysyllabic relational stems (such as PTpr *ja?iP `son of a male ego', *peT?ä `meat') resisted the deletion of */j/. An anonymous reviewer suggests that the loss of */j/ should be viewed as a morphological -- rather than phonological -- change; however, at present we lack evidence for analyzing */j/- as a prefix (other than in the relational nouns *j-eK `house.POSS' and *j-ekiP `arrow.POSS', which are indeed derived from the absolute nouns *eK `house' and *ekiP `arrow').



Table 5. Proto-Tuparian */j/ (oral *j, nasal *p)

PTpr	gloss	Wayoro	Tupari	Mekéns	Akuntsu	Makurap
oral (> Proto-Core Tuparian *0)
*japo: ~ *jambo:	shimbillo (CT only)	--	hapo	tapo:	--	--
*jajo Although no cognate in Makurap is known, PCT *öaöo can be securely traced back to PTpr *jajo because precise external cognates are found all across Tupian (Karo and Purubora jajo, Karitiana sosi, Proto-Munduruku *ÖajÖo(?), Sateré-Mawé sahu, PTG *tatu; cf. Galucio et al. 2015: 262). Moore & Galucio (1994: 132) give Makurap tayto (in our transcription, tacto), but we could not confirm the existence of this form in our main sources on Makurap; moreover, it does not correspond regularly to the remaning forms. Mekéns tato is attested by Moore & Galucio (1994: 132) and Snethlage (2015: 520, <tatu> `Tatu (Gürteltier)').	armadillo	ndato The expected reflex of the intervocalic PTpr *j would be *nd, not t. It is likely that that some sort of a dis-similation of the kind *NDVND... > NDVD... applied in this word, as in *pgwapgo > pgwago `sweet potato' (with an additional devoicing: *nd > *d > t; note that [d] is not part of the phonetic inventory of Wayoro).	--	tato	tato	--
*ja(:)ko	lizard	--	hako	ta:ko	--	câko
*jakeK The expected reflexes in Wayoro and Tupari would be Way *ndakeK, Tup *hakeK. We surmise that Way akeK was borrowed from an early form of Tupari (or a variety close to it), whereas in Tupari some sort of expressive re-duplication could have applied. The Mekéns reflex is regular but is attested only in Hanke et al. (1958: 212) as <takêk>, where its regular relation to Munduruku da?ak (< *öa?ik) and Tupinamba ta?oK is noted.	army ant	? akeK	hakékfej	takeK	--	--
*jai Although no cognate in Makurap is known, PCT *öai can be securely traced back to PTpr *jai because a precise external cognate is found in Karo (jai `howler monkey', Galucio et al. 2015: 267). The Wayoro reflex is also attested as ndeu (Nogueira 2015: 617). Akuntsu -koP stands for `red'.	howler monkey	ndau	hau	ta:?i	tai-koP	--
*jao Although no cognate in Core Tuparian is known, Mak câo can be securely traced back to PTpr *jao because a precise external cognate is found in Karo (jaw `stringray', Gabas Jr. 1999: 13). Galucio et al. (2015: 272) also cite possible cognates in Purubora, Yudja, and Xipaya.	stingray	--	--	--	--	câo
*jaote	peccary	--	haote-?irî	taotse	taotfé	câo te
*jaP	hair, feather	ndaP	haP	taP	a-tâP	caP
*ja:P	village	--	ha:P	ta:P	--	caP
*wejaP	anteater (CT only)	ywëndaP	--	kwetaP	witâP	--
*jaT	snake	ndaT	haT	--	--	caT
*jaT?a	bullet ant (WT only)	ndara	hâT?a	--	--	--
*ojaT	fire	--	--	otat	otâT	ocaT
*jac	itchiness (WT only)	ndaC	pe-âc hâc-ka `to scratch'	--	--	--
PTpr	gloss	Wayoro	Tupari	Mekéns	Akuntsu	Makurap
*ja?iP	son, fraternal nephew (male ego)	ndauP	ha?uP	taiP	taiP	caiP (also `sperm')
*joP	father	ndoP	ho(:)P	toP	toP	coP
*jo(:)P Although no cognate in Makurap is known, PCT *do(:)P can be securely traced back to PTpr *jo(:)P (as op-posed to **ndo(:)P) because a precise external cognate is found in Karo (jop- `to live', Gabas Jr. 1999: 127). The noun *jo-aP `hammock' is a nominalization of this verb (`lying place').	to lie	ndoP-	--	to P-	to-a	--
*jo-aP	hammock (CT)	ndo-aP	o-âP ~ w-aP	to-aP	to-aP	--
*jo?oP	that (sitting)	--	ho?oP	--	--	co:P
*jiri	two (CT only)	nduru-T	huru `pair'	tiri	tiri	--
*j-eP	leaf.POSS In most Tuparian languages, the only known term for `leaf' is synchronically an underived relational noun., with no absolute equivalent attested. However, in Akuntsu one finds both an absolute (eP) and a relational (t-eP) form (Aragon 2014: 130), which is symbolized here by a hyphen.	ndeP	heP	teP	t-eP	ceP
*jeT	name	ndeT	heT	teT	teT	ceT
*jeT?oP The absence of a coda consonant in Akuntsu is irregular, as is the vowel o in the initial syllable in Ma-kurap.	rubber	--	heroP	--	tedo	coroP
*j-eK	house.POSS	nd-eK	h-eK	t-eK	t-eK	c-eK
*ji:T	flower	kuP-ndi:T	? hi:T `side dish'	--	--	kiP-cir-eT
		`forest'
*ji:T-?a	flower (CT only)	ndi r-a	hiT-?a	tir-a The form is tentatively phonologized based on Snethlage's (2015: 520) attestation of <itira> `Blüte' (likely the third person i-tira). Hanke et al. (1958: 212) attests <ôtira> `eyebrow' (o- is the 1SG prefix), which is likely a semantic offshoot of the same word. The semantic development from `flower' to `eyebrow' has also been reconstructed for the Macro-Jê language Maxakali, where the compound kyC-dyT `eyebrow' means literally `forehead flower' (mi-dyT `flower', literally `tree flower'); see Nikulin and Silva (2020: 56).	tir-â	--
*eji	marico bag	endu	éu	eti	eti	éci
*pä	mother (voc.)	pä	pä	ä-tsi The Mekéns vocative term for `mother' is identified by Nogueira et al. (2019: 41) as a fossilized compound of the original vocative term for `mother' (PTpr *pä in our reconstruction) and the original referential term for `mother' (PTpr *ti in our reconstruction, still found in Mekéns as tsi), paralleling Mekéns abi-toP `father (voc.)' = abi `father (voc.)' + toP `father (ref.)'. Deriving the Mekéns form from PTpr *pä-ti is unproblematic, because the loss ...

Ïîäîáíûå äîêóìåíòû

• Ðroto-Indo-European

  Language is the most important aspect in the life of all beings. General information about Proto-Indo-European language. Proto-Indo-European phonology. Comparison of modern languages of origin. All words about family, particularly family members.
  
  êóðñîâàÿ ðàáîòà [30,2 K], äîáàâëåí 12.12.2013
  

• Local languages of Canada

  The description of languages of Canada — a significant amount of languages of indigenous population, immigrants and dialects arising in Canada and hybrid languages. English and French languages are recognised by the Constitution of Canada as "official".
  
  ïðåçåíòàöèÿ [750,5 K], äîáàâëåí 27.11.2010
  

• French Borrowings in the Modern English Language

  The oldest words borrowed from French. Unique domination of widespread languages in a certain epoch. French-English bilinguism. English is now the most widespread of the word's languages. The French Language in England. Influence on English phrasing.
  
  êóðñîâàÿ ðàáîòà [119,6 K], äîáàâëåí 05.09.2009
  

• Gender and age peculiarities of the language and some linguistic difficulties of translation them in practice

  Study of lexical and morphological differences of the women’s and men’s language; grammatical forms of verbs according to the sex of the speaker. Peculiarities of women’s and men’s language and the linguistic behavior of men and women across languages.
  
  äèïëîìíàÿ ðàáîòà [73,0 K], äîáàâëåí 28.01.2014
  

• History of english language

  The old Germanic languages, their classification and principal features. The chronological division of the History of English. The role of the Wessex dialect. The Norman Conquest and its effect on English. The Germanic languages in the modern world.
  
  êîíòðîëüíàÿ ðàáîòà [34,7 K], äîáàâëåí 17.01.2010
  

• Nouns

  The discovery of nouns. Introduction. Classification of nouns in English. Nouns and pronouns. Semantic vs. grammatical number. Number in specific languages. Obligatoriness of number marking. Number agreement. Types of number.
  
  êóðñîâàÿ ðàáîòà [31,2 K], äîáàâëåí 21.01.2008
  

• My English Studies

  Today it is quite evident that everyone should know at least one foreign language. Knowing one or more foreign languages makes it possible to get acquainted with different ways of thinking, to understand a new civilisation.
  
  òîïèê [5,4 K], äîáàâëåí 13.05.2002
  

• Comparison of nouns in English and Russian languages

  The case of the combination of a preposition with a noun in the initial form and description of cases in the English language: nominative, genitive, dative and accusative. Morphological and semantic features of nouns in English and Russian languages.
  
  êóðñîâàÿ ðàáîòà [80,1 K], äîáàâëåí 05.05.2011
  

• Methods of concept description

  New scientific paradigm in linguistics. Problem of correlation between peoples and their languages. Correlation between languages, cultural picularities and national mentalities. The Method of conceptual analysis. Methodology of Cognitive Linguistics.
  
  ðåôåðàò [13,3 K], äîáàâëåí 29.06.2011
  

• Ways of teaching foreign languages

  Comparing instructed and natural settings for language learning. Natural and instructional settings. Five principles for classroom teaching. The principle getting right from the beginning. The principle of saying what you mean and meaning what you say.
  
  äèïëîìíàÿ ðàáîòà [54,3 K], äîáàâëåí 10.07.2009
  

• A contrastive analysis of consonants of English and Turkish languages

  Comparative analysis and classification of English and Turkish consonant system. Peculiarities of consonant systems and their equivalents and opposites in the modern Turkish language. Similarities and differences between the consonants of these languages.
  
  äèïëîìíàÿ ðàáîòà [176,2 K], äîáàâëåí 28.01.2014
  

• Word Stress in English

  General guidelines on word stress: one word has only one stress; stress vowels, not consonants. Origins of the word stress and the notion of accent. English accentuation tendencies. Typical patterns of stress of nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs.
  
  êóðñîâàÿ ðàáîòà [275,8 K], äîáàâëåí 12.04.2014
  

• The comparative typology of English, Russian and Uzbek languages

  Investigating grammar of the English language in comparison with the Uzbek phonetics in comparison English with Uzbek. Analyzing the speech of the English and the Uzbek languages. Typological analysis of the phonological systems of English and Uzbek.
  
  êóðñîâàÿ ðàáîòà [60,3 K], äîáàâëåí 21.07.2009
  

• The history of the english language

  The influence of other languages and dialects on the formation of the English language. Changes caused by the Norman Conquest and the Great Vowel Shift.Borrowing and influence: romans, celts, danes, normans. Present and future time in the language.
  
  ðåôåðàò [25,9 K], äîáàâëåí 13.06.2014
  

• Lectures in Contrastive Lexicology of the English and Ukrainian Languages

  The structure of words and word-building. The semantic structure of words, synonyms, antonyms, homonyms. Word combinations and phraseology in modern English and Ukrainian languages. The Native Element, Borrowed Words, characteristics of the vocabulary.
  
  êóðñ ëåêöèé [95,2 K], äîáàâëåí 05.12.2010
  

• Why I study English

  In the world there are thousands of different languages. How indeed modern English is optimum mean for intercourse of people of different nationalities. Knowledge of English is needed for the effective teaching subsequent work and improvement of our life.
  
  ñî÷èíåíèå [13,7 K], äîáàâëåí 11.02.2009
  

• Intercultural communication of Russian and English languages

  Loan-words of English origin in Russian Language. Original Russian vocabulary. Borrowings in Russian language, assimilation of new words, stresses in loan-words. Loan words in English language. Periods of Russian words penetration into English language.
  
  êóðñîâàÿ ðàáîòà [55,4 K], äîáàâëåí 16.04.2011
  

• Changes and specimens of the English language

  Consideration on concrete examples of features of gramatical additions of the offer during various times, beginning from 19 centuries and going deep into historical sources of origin of English language (the Anglo-Saxon period of King Alfred board).
  
  êóðñîâàÿ ðàáîòà [37,7 K], äîáàâëåí 14.02.2010
  

• Organizational Function of Intonation in English and Ukrainian Languages

  The great diversity of opinion among the well-known domestic and foreign phoneticists in question on allocation of the main components of intonation. Functions and lexico-grammatical structure of intonation in English and in Ukrainian languages.
  
  ðåôåðàò [17,8 K], äîáàâëåí 29.04.2013
  

• Idiom in English vocabulary

  Comparison of understanding phraseology in English, American and post-Soviet vocabulary. Features classification idiomatic expressions in different languages. The analysis of idiomatic expressions denoting human appearance in the English language.
  
  êóðñîâàÿ ðàáîòà [30,9 K], äîáàâëåí 01.03.2015
  

• ãëàâíàÿ
• ðóáðèêè
• ïî àëôàâèòó
• âåðíóòüñÿ â íà÷àëî ñòðàíèöû
• âåðíóòüñÿ ê íà÷àëó òåêñòà
• âåðíóòüñÿ ê ïîäîáíûì ðàáîòàì