Some writers have even extended Indian usage further, creating Tupi neologisms for the modern life, in the same vein as New Latin. Mário de Andrade, for instance, coined sagüim-açu (saûĩ" + "[g]ûasú) for "elevator", using the name of a small tree-climbing monkey (sagüim).
The relationships between the neo-Latin languages
Tupi has given Brazilian Portuguese:
*A few thousands of words (some of them hybrids or corrupted) for animals, plants, fruit and cultural entities.
*The English-like pronunciation of R in the southern states.
*The intensification of the difference between rounded and unrounded E and O.
*The intensification of nasalisation
*The slang mechanism of producing compounds by assimilation (with both terms changing phonetically).
*NH being pronounced as nasal glide semivowel [y~] rather than palatal consonant [ñ]
Tupi is still quite "felt" in Brazil today as about 40% of the Brazilian municipalities have Tupi names:
*Iguaçu (y ûasú) : great river
*Itaquaquecetuba (itákûakesétyba, from itá + takûara + kesé + tyba): the rock where the bamboo trees bend with the wind
*Pindorama (from pindó, "palm tree"): (sth) that will grow like a palm tree someday (this was the name that the tupinikins gave to the place where they lived.
*Paranaíba (paranãyba, from paranã + y + ubá): where the sea can be sailed by river boats
*Umuarama (ũbuarama, from ũbu + ara + rama): where the cacti will grow
*Ipanema (y panema): unhealthy water (somehow prophetic).
*Itanhangá (itá + añãgá) : the rock where the devil goes.
*Pacaembu (paka + embu) : valley of the pacas.
*Piraí (pirá + í) : small fishes
*Jaguariúna (îagûara + í + una) : small black jaguar
*Paraná-mirim (paranã + mirĩ) : little ocean
Among the many Tupi loanwords in Portuguese, the following are notheworthy for their widespread use:
abacaxi (pineapple)
urubu (the Brazilian vulture)
urutu (a kind of rattlesnake)
pororoca (a tidal phenomenon in the Amazon firth)
piranha (a carnivorous fish, also slang for immoral women)
piroca (originally meant "bald", now a slang term for penis)
pipoca (popcorn)
perereca (a type of small frog, also slang for vulva)
peteca (a type of badminton game played with bare hands)
minhoca (earth worm)
siri (prawn)
cururu/jururu (sad, melancholy)
It is interesting however, that two of the most distinctive Brazilian animals, the jaguar and the tapir, despite being named in English with Tupi loanwoards, are best known in Brazilian Portuguese by non-Tupi names: onça (on-sa) and anta.
A significant number of Brazilians have Tupy names as well:
*Araci (female) : ara sy, the sun
*Ubirajara (male) : ybyrá îara, lord of the trees
*Jacy (both) : îá sy, the moon (mother of the night)
*Ubiratan (male) : ybyrá atã, war pipe
*Janaína (female) : îandá una, a beautiful black bird
*Iara (female) : y îara, lady of the lake
*Kauê (male): great intelligent man
*Kauã (male): hawk
Some names of distinct Indian ancestry have obscure etymology because the Tupinamba, as the Europeans, used to cherish traditional names, even though they sometimes had become archaic. Some of such names are "Moacyr (reportedly meaning son of pain) and "Moemma".
*A few thousands of words (some of them hybrids or corrupted) for animals, plants, fruit and cultural entities.
*The English-like pronunciation of R in the southern states.
*The intensification of the difference between rounded and unrounded E and O.
*The intensification of nasalisation
*The slang mechanism of producing compounds by assimilation (with both terms changing phonetically).
*NH being pronounced as nasal glide semivowel [y~] rather than palatal consonant [ñ]
Tupi is still quite "felt" in Brazil today as about 40% of the Brazilian municipalities have Tupi names:
*Iguaçu (y ûasú) : great river
*Itaquaquecetuba (itákûakesétyba, from itá + takûara + kesé + tyba): the rock where the bamboo trees bend with the wind
*Pindorama (from pindó, "palm tree"): (sth) that will grow like a palm tree someday (this was the name that the tupinikins gave to the place where they lived.
*Paranaíba (paranãyba, from paranã + y + ubá): where the sea can be sailed by river boats
*Umuarama (ũbuarama, from ũbu + ara + rama): where the cacti will grow
*Ipanema (y panema): unhealthy water (somehow prophetic).
*Itanhangá (itá + añãgá) : the rock where the devil goes.
*Pacaembu (paka + embu) : valley of the pacas.
*Piraí (pirá + í) : small fishes
*Jaguariúna (îagûara + í + una) : small black jaguar
*Paraná-mirim (paranã + mirĩ) : little ocean
Among the many Tupi loanwords in Portuguese, the following are notheworthy for their widespread use:
abacaxi (pineapple)
urubu (the Brazilian vulture)
urutu (a kind of rattlesnake)
pororoca (a tidal phenomenon in the Amazon firth)
piranha (a carnivorous fish, also slang for immoral women)
piroca (originally meant "bald", now a slang term for penis)
pipoca (popcorn)
perereca (a type of small frog, also slang for vulva)
peteca (a type of badminton game played with bare hands)
minhoca (earth worm)
siri (prawn)
cururu/jururu (sad, melancholy)
It is interesting however, that two of the most distinctive Brazilian animals, the jaguar and the tapir, despite being named in English with Tupi loanwoards, are best known in Brazilian Portuguese by non-Tupi names: onça (on-sa) and anta.
A significant number of Brazilians have Tupy names as well:
*Araci (female) : ara sy, the sun
*Ubirajara (male) : ybyrá îara, lord of the trees
*Jacy (both) : îá sy, the moon (mother of the night)
*Ubiratan (male) : ybyrá atã, war pipe
*Janaína (female) : îandá una, a beautiful black bird
*Iara (female) : y îara, lady of the lake
*Kauê (male): great intelligent man
*Kauã (male): hawk
Some names of distinct Indian ancestry have obscure etymology because the Tupinamba, as the Europeans, used to cherish traditional names, even though they sometimes had become archaic. Some of such names are "Moacyr (reportedly meaning son of pain) and "Moemma".
««Jacyra Mon Jul 24, 2006 2:11 am GMT»»
for understanding Portuguese people we need a translation/subtitles.
I bet you need. You are so dumb you can not understand Portuguese and you think you speak Italian don’t you? haha
Keep posting none sense; we really need a comedian to make us laugh!
pedro Mon Jul 24, 2006 6:42 am GMT
««WHY? Because the poor Brazilians were enslaved by the Portuguese and exploited, and this hatred is manifested nowadays culturally BEING IN DENIAL !»»
Since when the poor Brazilians were enslaved and exploited?
It was the Africans and not the Brazilians that were enslaved. And they were enslaved by the Africans that selled them to the Brazilians for the rich plantations. Who do you think that were the Brazilians?
for understanding Portuguese people we need a translation/subtitles.
I bet you need. You are so dumb you can not understand Portuguese and you think you speak Italian don’t you? haha
Keep posting none sense; we really need a comedian to make us laugh!
pedro Mon Jul 24, 2006 6:42 am GMT
««WHY? Because the poor Brazilians were enslaved by the Portuguese and exploited, and this hatred is manifested nowadays culturally BEING IN DENIAL !»»
Since when the poor Brazilians were enslaved and exploited?
It was the Africans and not the Brazilians that were enslaved. And they were enslaved by the Africans that selled them to the Brazilians for the rich plantations. Who do you think that were the Brazilians?
Jacyra is right.
Of course Brazilian Portuguese is really Italian.
Just look at all these words:
pizza = pizza
spagetti = esparguete
Of course Brazilian Portuguese is really Italian.
Just look at all these words:
pizza = pizza
spagetti = esparguete
"Since when the poor Brazilians were enslaved and exploited?
It was the Africans and not the Brazilians that were enslaved"
Brazilians = Africans, Indians and other mixage.
It was the Africans and not the Brazilians that were enslaved"
Brazilians = Africans, Indians and other mixage.
Guest Mon Jul 24, 2006 6:00 pm GMT
««"Since when the poor Brazilians were enslaved and exploited?
It was the Africans and not the Brazilians that were enslaved"
Brazilians = Africans, Indians and other mixage. »»
How good you explained it. There must have been a tribe in Africa called Brazilians that were enslaved... and an Indian tribe in the Tupi nation called Brazilians too.... how ignorant of me not to know this....
««"Since when the poor Brazilians were enslaved and exploited?
It was the Africans and not the Brazilians that were enslaved"
Brazilians = Africans, Indians and other mixage. »»
How good you explained it. There must have been a tribe in Africa called Brazilians that were enslaved... and an Indian tribe in the Tupi nation called Brazilians too.... how ignorant of me not to know this....
It may well be that standard Romanian as it is currently used on tv and press sound like standard Italian; but to conclude on the basis of this that Romanian is phonologically "closest" to Italian would be misleading.
Standard Romanian is in many ways artificial and, most surely fails to convey an idea of the diversity of the Romanian language as it has been spoken in the lands traditionally inhabited by Romanians, those being, roughly, Transylvania, Banat, Wallachia and Moldova.
The only sub-dialect standard Romanian offers a rather accurate representation of, is the Wallachian one spoken in southern Romania.
Phonologically, at least, standard Romanian took nothing from the other subdialects spoken in Banat, Transylvania and Moldova.
Except for the Wallachian sub-dialect, nowhere are the dental consonats left intact, but they are all palatalised to a certain degree (phenomenon attributed by many linguists to a northwestern Slavic -of the Slovakian sort- influnce);the labials are also palatalised in almost all of the northen Romanian subdialects, and even in some regions of southern Romania.
In Banat and Moldova and many parts of Transylvania, the affricates become fricatives in various stages; and the examples could go on.
So, these things considered, Romanian-or at least, its northen subdialects-loses much of that melodious character that could make it pass for Italian in some instances, at least.
Standard Romanian is in many ways artificial and, most surely fails to convey an idea of the diversity of the Romanian language as it has been spoken in the lands traditionally inhabited by Romanians, those being, roughly, Transylvania, Banat, Wallachia and Moldova.
The only sub-dialect standard Romanian offers a rather accurate representation of, is the Wallachian one spoken in southern Romania.
Phonologically, at least, standard Romanian took nothing from the other subdialects spoken in Banat, Transylvania and Moldova.
Except for the Wallachian sub-dialect, nowhere are the dental consonats left intact, but they are all palatalised to a certain degree (phenomenon attributed by many linguists to a northwestern Slavic -of the Slovakian sort- influnce);the labials are also palatalised in almost all of the northen Romanian subdialects, and even in some regions of southern Romania.
In Banat and Moldova and many parts of Transylvania, the affricates become fricatives in various stages; and the examples could go on.
So, these things considered, Romanian-or at least, its northen subdialects-loses much of that melodious character that could make it pass for Italian in some instances, at least.
I am currently deep into an Anatomy course at uni and I am stunned at how many similarities there are between Romanian (my background) to Latin. I have been to Italy and I could get by just on my Romanian, so as far as these two go I think that they are very similar. I have found it more difficult to have confersations with Spanish or Portugees.
Similarities between Romanian and Portuguese certainly do exist (and for that matter, Spanish as well), but sometimes require a little decoding, which cannot be easily done when someone is speaking to you at a conversational speed. The same applies for the inverse.
I'm back!!! I hope no one has been posing as me for the duration of my abscence from this board. I just moved to an actual house, and have been in the process of unpacking and organizing, along with school and work, so it's safe to say that I've been rather busy.
Let's see, Romanian.... Romanian sounds very distant, and I believe Tiffany summed it up best when she stated the now infamous phrase, "Romanian sounds like Latin and Slavic had a baby". At times, Romanian sounds like a strange Italian dialect, while other times I hear it, I hear a lot of Slavic phonological influence.
Brennus,
On the subject of Romanian people's origin, this is tough to say. One can usually surmise the origin by way of genetic testing, or as many laymen do, by simply observing the manifestations of their genetic ancestry in the form of their phenotype. I have never been to Romania, and I honestly can't say I have been exposed to much media coverage on Romania, so I don't really know what they look like, other than what I've seen from a couple of movies. Some typical things to consider when investigating a people's origin are physical traits like average height, degree of darkness to hair and eyes, facial features, etc. If most Romanians were of short to medium stature, and generally had brown to black hair, and dark eyes, then I would guess that their origins are primarily of mediterranean stock, which would have been introduced by Roman settlers. If most Romanians are tall, and have Slavic facial features, I would assume that they possess a significant Slavic contribution. Or, they can look like a mix of all three.
Now, if you could help me, I'm doing a research report on changes in average height around the world. Traditionally, and all throughout history, people in Asia and southern Europe were several inches shorter than Northern Europeans. There are myriads of Roman accounts, Arab/Persian accounts, and east Asian accounts of the gigantic stature of northern Europeans. Roman soldiers from the mediterranean world were an average height of 5'4, while skeletal remains of Germanic warriors show that they averaged 5'10 during the same period. In Northern Europe, height steadily decreased with the onset of urbanization after 1000 A.D., due to overcrowded populations, outbreaks of disease, and shortage of food. This could be an explanation for the short stature of Romans (including Spaniards, Syrians, Greeks, Italians, etc) in the Roman imperial period, but it is not likely. In classical times, the level of civilization was higher than it was in the middle ages. Roman cities were one of cleanliness, (baths, everyone bathed) indoor plumbing, etc, and much wealth. Romans enjoyed a very high standard of living at that time when compared to other parts of the world. There was public sanitation, clean water, and most people bathed on a daily basis. These circumstances do not encourage the spread of disease, nor did they create widespread food shortages, as was the case in the middle ages, where public sanitation did not exist, people did not bathe or clean their clothes, there was not access to clean drinking water, the standard of living was low, and there was thus a shortage of food for most people, etc. Further proof lies in the stature of well-to-do Romans. Even Julius Caesar was considered very tall at 5'6, and he was a noble. Most Roman Emperors were no taller than 5'6, and their living and enviromental conditions could not have been any better. The Allemani mocked Emperor Julian on his Rhine campaign, and called him the "Little Greek". When a chieftan of that tribe was brought before him, he was reportedly "two heads taller". In more modern times, Asians and southern Europeans were still generally several inches shorter than Northern Europeans. Within the last few generations, Asians and southern Europeans have nearly caught up to Northern Europeans in height, despite being far shorter for all of history. Most people attribute this to changes in diet, like growth hormone injected animal protein and the like. But if this produced such a tremendous change in height amongst these people, then the same should apply to Northern Europeans, and the height differential would thus remain unchanged, with the NEs being 4-6 inches taller than southern Europeans and well developed Asian countries like Japan. Most statistics indicate that average height in traditionally short countries like Italy and Spain for men is 5'9 or 5'10, which is only about an inch or two shorter than northern countries like Germany and Denmark. Are these statistics wrong? I need to know for a school report so it is important to me. I have heard from others who have travelled in Italy and other southern countries, like one woman for instance. She is a squat 5'3 at the most, and she claims that most Italian men are at her eye level, virtually the same height. Official statistics that I come across say that Italian men are 5'9, almost the same as American men. If you have been to Europe, and to countries like Italy, Spain, and France, how tall would you say the average man was in these countries? I would really like to know what somebody knows who has actually been there and walked among the people. Anyone else for that matter who has been to these places who wishes to contribute, I would greatly appreciate it.
Let's see, Romanian.... Romanian sounds very distant, and I believe Tiffany summed it up best when she stated the now infamous phrase, "Romanian sounds like Latin and Slavic had a baby". At times, Romanian sounds like a strange Italian dialect, while other times I hear it, I hear a lot of Slavic phonological influence.
Brennus,
On the subject of Romanian people's origin, this is tough to say. One can usually surmise the origin by way of genetic testing, or as many laymen do, by simply observing the manifestations of their genetic ancestry in the form of their phenotype. I have never been to Romania, and I honestly can't say I have been exposed to much media coverage on Romania, so I don't really know what they look like, other than what I've seen from a couple of movies. Some typical things to consider when investigating a people's origin are physical traits like average height, degree of darkness to hair and eyes, facial features, etc. If most Romanians were of short to medium stature, and generally had brown to black hair, and dark eyes, then I would guess that their origins are primarily of mediterranean stock, which would have been introduced by Roman settlers. If most Romanians are tall, and have Slavic facial features, I would assume that they possess a significant Slavic contribution. Or, they can look like a mix of all three.
Now, if you could help me, I'm doing a research report on changes in average height around the world. Traditionally, and all throughout history, people in Asia and southern Europe were several inches shorter than Northern Europeans. There are myriads of Roman accounts, Arab/Persian accounts, and east Asian accounts of the gigantic stature of northern Europeans. Roman soldiers from the mediterranean world were an average height of 5'4, while skeletal remains of Germanic warriors show that they averaged 5'10 during the same period. In Northern Europe, height steadily decreased with the onset of urbanization after 1000 A.D., due to overcrowded populations, outbreaks of disease, and shortage of food. This could be an explanation for the short stature of Romans (including Spaniards, Syrians, Greeks, Italians, etc) in the Roman imperial period, but it is not likely. In classical times, the level of civilization was higher than it was in the middle ages. Roman cities were one of cleanliness, (baths, everyone bathed) indoor plumbing, etc, and much wealth. Romans enjoyed a very high standard of living at that time when compared to other parts of the world. There was public sanitation, clean water, and most people bathed on a daily basis. These circumstances do not encourage the spread of disease, nor did they create widespread food shortages, as was the case in the middle ages, where public sanitation did not exist, people did not bathe or clean their clothes, there was not access to clean drinking water, the standard of living was low, and there was thus a shortage of food for most people, etc. Further proof lies in the stature of well-to-do Romans. Even Julius Caesar was considered very tall at 5'6, and he was a noble. Most Roman Emperors were no taller than 5'6, and their living and enviromental conditions could not have been any better. The Allemani mocked Emperor Julian on his Rhine campaign, and called him the "Little Greek". When a chieftan of that tribe was brought before him, he was reportedly "two heads taller". In more modern times, Asians and southern Europeans were still generally several inches shorter than Northern Europeans. Within the last few generations, Asians and southern Europeans have nearly caught up to Northern Europeans in height, despite being far shorter for all of history. Most people attribute this to changes in diet, like growth hormone injected animal protein and the like. But if this produced such a tremendous change in height amongst these people, then the same should apply to Northern Europeans, and the height differential would thus remain unchanged, with the NEs being 4-6 inches taller than southern Europeans and well developed Asian countries like Japan. Most statistics indicate that average height in traditionally short countries like Italy and Spain for men is 5'9 or 5'10, which is only about an inch or two shorter than northern countries like Germany and Denmark. Are these statistics wrong? I need to know for a school report so it is important to me. I have heard from others who have travelled in Italy and other southern countries, like one woman for instance. She is a squat 5'3 at the most, and she claims that most Italian men are at her eye level, virtually the same height. Official statistics that I come across say that Italian men are 5'9, almost the same as American men. If you have been to Europe, and to countries like Italy, Spain, and France, how tall would you say the average man was in these countries? I would really like to know what somebody knows who has actually been there and walked among the people. Anyone else for that matter who has been to these places who wishes to contribute, I would greatly appreciate it.
@LAA
No offence, but...
Romanians are not descendants of Romans as we know them now.
Of course it was Roman civilisation who imposed their way of living and standards. But the Roman colonists which got land in Dacia were from all over the world... they were mostly tough veterans who served the Roman army for more than 20 years. Dacian Empire was the last big kingdom conquered by Romans and the Roman territory was at its maximum size at that time.
Romans, tired to pay tribute to the Dacians after they lost the first war, 20 years before, had to get all the resources and army needed... The legions came from Siria, Iberia, Dalmatia and from many other regions.
You're also, forgetting about the huge local Dacian genetical line which was bigger than all the Southern Slavs put together... Also, you're ignoring 1000 years of Barbarian migrations on actual Romanian lands, you're ignoring Dacian, Gothic, Gepid, Bulgarian (Slavic and Non-Slavic), Sarmatian and other ancient kingdoms which affected the ethnical composition.
Anyway, genetical theories are rather obsolete, epecially in Balcan region, where people and cultures are mixed up much more than you can imagine.
Of course, you'll find Slavic genetical line in Romanians, but that's not the point.
And btw, even the initial Slavic name <Vlach> or the Turkic (don't mix it up with Turkish) one, <Ruman> means "of Roman origin".
No offence, but...
Romanians are not descendants of Romans as we know them now.
Of course it was Roman civilisation who imposed their way of living and standards. But the Roman colonists which got land in Dacia were from all over the world... they were mostly tough veterans who served the Roman army for more than 20 years. Dacian Empire was the last big kingdom conquered by Romans and the Roman territory was at its maximum size at that time.
Romans, tired to pay tribute to the Dacians after they lost the first war, 20 years before, had to get all the resources and army needed... The legions came from Siria, Iberia, Dalmatia and from many other regions.
You're also, forgetting about the huge local Dacian genetical line which was bigger than all the Southern Slavs put together... Also, you're ignoring 1000 years of Barbarian migrations on actual Romanian lands, you're ignoring Dacian, Gothic, Gepid, Bulgarian (Slavic and Non-Slavic), Sarmatian and other ancient kingdoms which affected the ethnical composition.
Anyway, genetical theories are rather obsolete, epecially in Balcan region, where people and cultures are mixed up much more than you can imagine.
Of course, you'll find Slavic genetical line in Romanians, but that's not the point.
And btw, even the initial Slavic name <Vlach> or the Turkic (don't mix it up with Turkish) one, <Ruman> means "of Roman origin".
LAA,
Your question has nothing to do with language.
If you want some clue I found this :
http://www.3dweave.com/plugins/business_graph/exemples/rendus/taille_europe.jpg
But we don't know the sources.
As a European, for what I saw there is not a big difference of height among Europeans. As a European, for What I saw, Scandinavians and Dutch are generally quite above the average. A lot of Germans too, and in a lesser extend British.
Your question has nothing to do with language.
If you want some clue I found this :
http://www.3dweave.com/plugins/business_graph/exemples/rendus/taille_europe.jpg
But we don't know the sources.
As a European, for what I saw there is not a big difference of height among Europeans. As a European, for What I saw, Scandinavians and Dutch are generally quite above the average. A lot of Germans too, and in a lesser extend British.
But lt's put away the stereotypes;
If you think that northern Europeans are always taller than southern Europeans, you could watch this article : croatians from dalmatia (mediterranean region) are among the taller Europeans !
http://www.europeplusnet.info/article353.html
If you think that northern Europeans are always taller than southern Europeans, you could watch this article : croatians from dalmatia (mediterranean region) are among the taller Europeans !
http://www.europeplusnet.info/article353.html
and not forgetting that height change can change dramatically :
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040405fa_fact
but in the same time it can still be some differences among Europeans :
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10942348&dopt=Abstract
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040405fa_fact
but in the same time it can still be some differences among Europeans :
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10942348&dopt=Abstract