Talk:Tupi language

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tupi language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090525194636/http://www.fflch.usp.br:80/dlcv/tupi/posposicao_em_tupi.htm to http://www.fflch.usp.br/dlcv/tupi/posposicao_em_tupi.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Para registro

• Anchieta’s grammar and humanistic renaissance history of grammar
• “Tupi or not tupi” – A identidade indígena do Brasil

RodRabelo7 (talk) 01:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

"Tupinology" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Tupinology has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 6 § Tupinology until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

"Tupinologist" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Tupinologist has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 6 § Tupinologist until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

"Tupinologists" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Tupinologists has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 6 § Tupinologists until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

"Play of Saint Lawrence" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Play of Saint Lawrence has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 9 § Play of Saint Lawrence until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

"Auto de São Lourenço" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Auto de São Lourenço has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 9 § Auto de São Lourenço until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

"The Play of Saint Lawrence" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect The Play of Saint Lawrence has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 9 § The Play of Saint Lawrence until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

not that common?

the passage: «The use of the letter x for the voiceless palatal fricative /ʃ/, a spelling convention common in the languages of the Iberian Peninsula but unusual elsewhere.»

links to a page that has examples in several languages, but none for Iberian peninsula's, contradicting the claim here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcbwiki (talk • contribs) 20:45, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Merge Potiguara dialect and Tupiniquim dialect here.

As I've stated:

• Potiguara: "the vocabulary is something bizarre to say the least hardly having anything to do with Tupi, and the "dialect" is actually Old Tupi (the "data" even has an article: Camarão Indians' letters). This feels like a Frankenstein"
• Tupiniquim: "no way it went extinct in the 1960s, and I'm wondering if we really should have an article for a dialect of Old Tupi whose differences aren't even attested (and "only three words are known" but the language is "taught"?!)"

Both articles are rather bizarre. Though I'm suggesting a merge, I think nothing from them can actually be used here. Just redirect them (I had already done it, but Kepler-1229b decided they deserved articles...). At most this article could have a section on linguistic revitalization, hopefully written by someone who knows Portuguese and doesn't just use any source they find. @Trooper57 and Polomo: inviting. Yacàwotçã (talk) 02:47, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

• Merge in light of an actual explanation. To clarify, you had only merged Tupiniquim and not Potiguara, and the vocabulary in the latter could be somehow incorporated into a section on vocabulary or dialects. Nevertheless, it seems that none of these articles should be indepedent of this page. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 02:54, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

  The SIL source in the Potiguara article is interesting, but as a primary source, it should be used with extreme caution. If you could find any secondary sources discussing it, that would be nice (I have never found one). For instance, some words are evidently Portuguese, such as "mařiskho" (marisco), "kənšikə" (canjica), while others are of Tupi origin but long incoporated to Portuguese, such as "křařwata" (see pt:Caraguatá), "ɔka" (see pt:Oca), "nʌmbu" (see pt:Nambu), "dzižuảsu" (see pt:Tejuaçu), and "kařimə" (see pt:Carimã). "ləndwa" is apparently Portuguese landuá, of unknown origin, but likely not Tupian due to its /l/. "mʌʔmʌndwa" reminds me of pt:Tamanduá. I suppose the informant actually spoke Portuguese and remembered some random words of various origins, not from any specific language or dialect. Yacàwotçã (talk) 03:13, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

  mʌʔmʌndwa reminds me of wikt:mangangá (bumblebee; beetle), which presumably had a form with /m/ judging by the form wikt:mamangaba (or maybe it’s from confusion with mamangá?). I was just asking Trooper if he ever read this word anywhere and he didn’t have anything to tell me... I wonder if you do? Please reach out. Polomo (talk) 03:23, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

  Polomo, makes more sense indeed to be cognate with this word rather than with "tamanduá", considering it's translated as "bicho". VLB records "mãgãga" (mangangá) and "mangagay" (manganga'i) as translations for "bizouro". The Portuguese words also seem to imply the existence of *mangangaba, *mamangá, and *mamangaba. There's a phonetic difficulty there, but I don't doubt the connection, which is much more plausible than with tamanduá. There's a cognate in Classical Guarani "mangȃngá" , translated as "abejon" by Montoya. Natalia Krivoshein de Canese also records "mamanga" (oxítona; leia-se mamangá) here, with the same translation, "abejón" (and "abejorro"). Did I help? Preciso jogar um Stardew Valleyzinho e ir dormir! Yacàwotçã (talk) 03:48, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I don’t believe I have much to add here, given I’m not an expert on Wikipedia editing, so I’m not voting. But what I can say is that those articles are very small and provide, like, no useful info (Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and half of “Potiguara” is just that). Appears to me that this information would be most useful placed in a “Dialects” section in the Old Tupi (= Tupinambá) article, yes.

From the little I have read in Navarro, I have no reason to doubt Yacàwotçã’s claims about lack of references either. Polomo (talk) 02:56, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Merge. Tupiniquim is just a made-up language listed in Glottolog, all mentions of it in the single source (Rosalba, 1976) are referring to the people; I just couldn't find the three known words there. Both of them also have a disclaimer on their pages saying they may not exist. Trooper57 (talk) 03:15, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh, the talk pages. @Mahagaja had already noticed the contradiction of it. Yacàwotçã (talk) 03:20, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.