In Juruna I have constructed, until now, 39 entries for kinship terms, 10 of them are alienable, and the rest inalienable. These ones need to have a prefix of person marking, a possessive. The difference can be seen below:
-pa . n. [ pá ](termo de referência; identidade para ego masculino e ego feminino;
consanguíneo) 1. F pai, upa wï meu pai chegou; 2. FB irmão do pai (também -pa nana) 3. MH marido da mãe; 4. MZH marido da irmã da mãe ~ -pa i’uraha .n. eFB irmão mais velho do pai ~ -pa iza. n. yFB irmão mais novo do pai (cf. baba)86
baba. n. [ bába ] (termo de referência e vocativo; identidade para ego masculino e
feminino; consanguíneo). 1. F pai , baba wï “o pai chegou”; baba, atene wï “pai, venha logo” ; 2. FB irm o do pai (pã – termo em desuso, mas tido como mais tradicional) (cf. – pa)87
The second term is alienable, it doesn’t need person marking, but the first term is inalienable, it never could occur without a person marking, a possessive, but the lemma was proposed without any mark of person, using just a hyphen to signalize the need of such a mark. This is a lexicographic decision by an abstract form, to avoid inflating a letter, at the beginning of all inalienable words, if we have had chosen a particular person mark, like “our-inclusive” (in elicitation uruna speakers almost always say inalienable words as “our foot”, “our father”, and so on). It could have some criticism, saying that speakers couldn’t recognize their language, because without person marking, the abstract form is seen as inexistent. But what we must
86
-pa . n. (reference term; identity for male and female Ego; consanguineous) 1. F father,
upa wï ‘my father came’; 2. FB father’s brother (also -pa nana) 3. MH mother’s husband; 4.
MZH mother’s sister’s husband ~ -pa i’uraha .n. eFB eldest father’s brother ~ -pa iza. n. yFB youngest father’s brother (cf. baba)
87
baba. n. [ bába ] (reference term and vocative term; identity for male and female Ego; consanguineous). 1. F pai , baba wï “father came”; baba, atene wï “daddy, come soon” ; 2. FB father’s brother (pã – term into disuse, but considered more traditional) (cf. –pa)
think is that every dictionary deals with abstraction: we cannot find inflected verb forms and feminine nouns, in a Portuguese dictionary. Is it a problem to a consultant? Don’t we know that these forms cannot be found? Surely, the lexicographic decisions must be known by the consultant, and this may happen with indigenous languages too, in different manners, of course, because languages are different.
Both terms have phonetic transcription and this is important, since it can mark prosodic features absent in written spelling: it is a tonal language, marked accent of intensity according to alternation of tones in the word. So, 'my father' and 'leaf', homographs by orthography, have different pronunciation, with the same stressed syllable, but with different alternating tones. In [ u pá ] 'my father', low-high, and [ ú pá ] 'leaf', high-high, the coincidence of stress is due to the application of default: the stress goes to the first syllable with high tone, from left to right, and if the tones are the same, the last syllable is stressed (cf . Fargetti, 2007). The orthography attempts to avoid excess of diacritics, which led to abolish any accent mark. The speaker of the language has the context to understand the pronunciation of the word (cf. Fargetti, 2012).
The linguistic and anthropological information that follow serve to show the distribution of the term, if it can function as reference or vocative; also whether there is identity for male speech and female speech (male Ego and female Ego), and the distinction “consanguineous x affine?”. This information is important to better understand the system in question. In renderings, the English abbreviations are translated into Portuguese because it is important for the user who does not know it, including Juruna people. Examples were elaborated from possible occurrences between the speakers, and the verb 'come' is interesting even to present low tone and so allow us to know with certainty the tones of kinship term. However, such examples will be discussed further with the speakers of the language.
6. Conclusion
We have tried to discuss punctual issues, like the use of person marking and problems it could bring to a dictionary user; the knowledge needed to recollect and to re-analyze kinship data; some entries in Juruna language, trying to show a comprehensive discussion about some decisions. But, some questions are still open, such as: information about the kinship system itself, bringing the possibilities of relationship between kin and affines?, should be included in the entries? Accordingly, restrictions should be highlighted, even though sometimes rules are broken in some marriages? Anyway, what is enough information for the entries?
References
Araújo, C.; Storto, L. (2002) “Terminologia de parentesco Karitiana e Juruna: uma compara o de algumas equa es entre categorias paralelas e gera es alternas”. In Cabral, A.S.; Rodrigues, A. (eds.) Atas do I Encontro Internacional do GTLI da ANPOLL. Tomo II. Belém: EDUFPA, 430-442.
Fargetti, C. M. (2013) “Pesquisa de línguas indígenas – quest es de método.” Trilhas Linguísticas 23. São Paulo: Cultura Acadêmica. 115-135
Fargetti, C. M. (2012) “Dicionários de línguas indígenas e quest es de prosódia.” In Fargetti, C. M. (ed.). Abordagens sobre o Léxico em Línguas Indígenas. Campinas: Curt Nimuendaju. 67-82.
Fargetti, C. M. (2010) “Cultura material indígena: quest es lexicográficas.” In Cabral, A.S.; Rodrigues, A.; Duarte, F. B. (eds.) Línguas e Culturas Tupí. 1 ed., v. 2. Campinas: Curt Nimuendajú. 117-129.
Fargetti, C. M. (2007) Estudo Fonológico e Morfossintático da Língua Juruna. 1 ed., v. 1. Muenchen - Alemanha: LINCOM EUROPA.
Fargetti, C. M. (1992) Análise Fonológica da Língua Juruna. Campinas: UNICAMP. Ghasarian, C. (1996) Introdução ao Estudo do Parentesco. Lisboa: Terramar.
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1967) As estruturas elementares do parentesco. (2003) [3rd ed.]. Petrópolis: Vozes.
Lima, T. S. (1995) A parte do Cauim – etnografia juruna. Rio de Janeiro: UFRJ
Mosel, U. (2011) “Lexicography in endangered language communities.” In Austin, P.; Sallabank, J. (eds.) The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages. New York: Cambridge University Press. 337-353
Oliveira, A. E. (1970) Os índios juruna do Alto Xingu. Dédalo, VI, 11, 12. São Paulo : USP. Parkin, R. (1997) Kinship: an introduction to the basic concepts. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ramirez, H. (2001) Dicionário Baniwa-Português. Manaus: Editora da Universidade do Amazonas.
Real Instituto de Antropologia da Grã-Bretanha e Irlanda (1973)
Guia prático de antropologia.[2ªed.] São Paulo: Cultrix.
Ribeiro, B. (1988) Dicionário do artesanato indígena. Belo Horizonte: Itatiaia; São Paulo: EDUSP.
Ribeiro, B. (1989) Arte indígena, linguagem visual/ Indigenous art, visual language. Belo Horizonte: Itatiaia; São Paulo: EDUSP.
Silva, M. (2009) Romance de Primas e Primos – uma Etnografia do Parentesco Waimiri-
Atroari. Manaus: Valer/EDUA.
Silva, M. (1999) “Linguagem e parentesco.” Revista de Antropologia, vol. 42. n 1-2. São Paulo. Viveiros de Castro, E. (1995) Antropologia do Parentesco – Estudos Ameríndios. Rio de