Kayapo language
Kayapó, also known as Mẽbengokre, is a Jê language of Brazil. It is an indigenous language spoken in the north of Mato Grosso and Pará in Brazil. Mebengokre belongs to the Jê family and the Macro-Jê family stock. There are around 8,600 native speakers since 2010 based on the 2015 Ethnologue 18th edition. Due to the number of speakers and the influence of Portuguese speakers, the language stands at a sixth level of endangerment; in which the materials for literacy and education in Kayapó are very limited.
Ethnography
The names Kayapó and Mebengokre do not only make reference to the language itself but have also been used to classify the indigenous communities that speak this language. Kayapô means “those who look like monkeys” and has been used to distinguish the Kayapó group from the other Mebengokre speaking peoples. The name Mebengokre has a meaning of itself; when referring to people, it means “the men of the hole/place of water.” "Although there are differences between the dialects spoken among the various ethnic groups, all recognize themselves as participants in a common culture."The first historical records of the Kayapó language and culture date back to the end of the 19th century written by the French explorer Henri Coudreau, who came in contact with the Irã'ã Mrãjre Kayapó. The following writings were made by the missionaries who arrived to Brazil later in the century to Christianize the indigenous people. Known authors of such period are Father Sebastião and Reverend Horace Banner, who lived among another Mebengokre group known as Gorotire Kayapó between 1937 and 1951. Although, “the Mebengokre permanent contact with the surrounding non-indigenous population at various times, in most cases catastrophic consequences. The Irã'ã Mrãjre are now extinct, and the population of the Gorotire Kayapó decreased by 80% during the first years of contact. Following such brutal experiences, some small refused to be approached by investigators and remain uncontacted around the Xingu and Curua rivers.
Since the exploration period, academic linguists and anthropologists have investigated the Mebengokre and have successfully acquired a body of knowledge about this indigenous group. There are academic writings on the descriptive grammar and phonology of Kayapó language; some by Stout and Thomson in 1974, and Borgues in 1995, dictionaries with Portuguese translations; syntactic and phonological studies by Andres Salanova and Amelia Silva, translations of the New Testament into Kayapó published in 1996, and literary works including myth and ritual stories and descriptions of the Mebengokre speaking communities.
Furthermore, the Brazilian organization ProDocult began a documentation project of the Kayapó language and culture in April 2009 and thus far have produced "150 hours of video recording, 15 hours of audio recording and more than 6,000 digital photos, in addition to... films records of "culture" Mebengokre, and how could it be... highly dynamic creative aspect."
The phonological inventory of Mẽbêngokre is composed of 16 consonants and 17 vowels, including oral and nasal vowels. Mẽbêngokre has a series of voiced oral stops, which makes it unique among the Northern Jê languages in employing the feature for establishing phonological oppositions. All other Northern Jê languages lost Proto-Northern Jê voiced obstruents through devoicing.Consonants
| Labial | Alveolar | Palatal | Velar | Glottal | |
| Voiceless stop | p | t | t͡ʃ | k | ʔ |
| Voiced stop | b | d | d͡ʒ | g | |
| Nasal | m | n | ɲ | ŋ | |
| Liquid | w | ɾ | j |
Vowels
Morphology
The morphological aspect of the Kayapô is still under research given the complexity that nasality adds to the construction of morpho-syntactic. According to Linguistics Ph.D Professor Patience Epps “the manifestation of nasality in Amazonian languages has practical implications for the development of orthographies.” As well, languages from the Amazon are “weakly-tensed languages; where tense may be left unexpressed”. In the case of Kayapô, verbs inflect through reduplication and although there is no morphological distinction between present and past, the completion or continuation of an action is determined by the narrative context.Reduplication indicates repeated actions and transitivity of verbs as follows:
| totyktyk ‘to strike repeatedly’ | totyk ‘to strike’ |
| kyjkyj ‘to make many scratches’ | kyj ‘a scratch or cut’ |
| krãkrãk ‘to swallow’ | tokrãk ‘to swallow at once’ |
In some verbs, such as prõrprõt, there is variation in order to follow the /r/ to /t/ to the syllabic structures CV and CVC.
Pronouns
Mebengokre has a set of pronouns to which affixes can be added during the formation of sentence types.Basic form of pronouns:
Syntax
Case System
In Mebengokre any content word can be a direct object. Mebengokre has a split case system composed of the nominative, ergative, absolute and accusative cases; each with different affixes.Nominative and Ergative Case
These cases are mandatory to express the subject of the sentence. For instance:a) arɤm nẽ ba ar i.tẽm mʌ̃
now Non-FUT 1Nom PC 1.go to
‘We are leaving’
b) dʒʌ̃m nẽ ga aje ɔmũɲ ket
INT Non-FUT 2Nom 2Erg 3+see Neg
‘Don’t you see?’
In 1a. the nominative case introduces the subject of the main clause while 2b. introduces the subject in a subordinate clause with a non-finite verb.
Absolute case
The absolute case is not unique to subject and object arguments of non-finite verbs. It is also used when representing the object argument of finite verbs. For instance:uɤrɤ mã nẽ tẽ
3+shower to Non-FUT Go
Accusative case
It is the same as the absolute case, except it present in transitive verbs.arɤm nẽ ba ku.ma
Already Non-FUT 1Nom 3Acc.Listen/hear
‘I heard it ’
Semantics
Tense
Mebengokre tenses are expressed in terms of finiteness rather than aspectual morphology. The following sentence shows the role of verbal finiteness when determining tense:a.
krwɣj jã nẽ mop krẽ
parakeet DEM NFUT Malanga eat.V
‘This parakeet ate Malanga’
b.
krwɣj jã nẽ kutɛ mop krẽn
parakeet DEM NFUT 3RG Malanga eat.N
‘This parakeet has eaten Malanga ’
The semantic interpretation of 4a positions the events with respect to the time which can only be determined by narrative context.In contrast, 4b makes the event not "anaphoric to discourse, but rather coterminous with the subject’s lifespan. This interpretation has been variously described as “stative” or “subject-oriented” in the descriptive literature.”