Download Celso Cunha e Lindley Cintra Nova Gramatica do Portugues aracer.mobi Celso Cunha e Lindley Cintra Nova Gramatica do Portugues aracer.mobi - Ebook download as PDF File .pdf) or read book online. Gramatica do Portugues Contemporaneo - Celso Cunha e Lindley Cintra Nova - pdf - Free ebook download as PDF File .pdf) or read book online for free.
|Language:||English, Spanish, French|
|Genre:||Children & Youth|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Registration needed]|
Celso-Cunha-e-Lindley-Cintra-Nova-Gramatica-do-Portugues- aracer.mobi - Ebook download as PDF File .pdf) or read book online . Celso Cunha Gramatica Pdf ->>->>->> aracer.mobi celso cunha gramatica pdf celso cunha gramatica celso cunha gramatica do portugues. do portugues contemporaneo [celso cunha, lindley cintra] on site. pdf full ebook ebook download nova gramatica do portugues brasileiro pdf full ebook txt .
The volume closes with a substantial essay on the life and work of Machado de Assis, covering the historical-cultural context and some early reviews of Dom Casmurro. Textual errors that were overlook in the edition are corrected here and documented separately in the apparatus. Not only this, the care Carvalho e Silva has taken in explaining the lapses in his earlier work is certainly commendable.
She has mainly worked in the fields of Portuguese Language and of Portuguese Linguistics. She is a member of the Centre for Linguistics of the University of Lisbon, where she is editing texts by the Portuguese 19th-century novelist Camilo Castelo Branco.
Contents - Previous document - Next document. Book Reviews. Bibliographical reference Joachim Maria Machado de Assis. Full text PDF Send by e-mail. Top of page. Copyright The authors Top of page. Browse Index Authors Keywords.
Follow us RSS feed. Newsletters OpenEdition Newsletter. Member access Login Password Log in Cancel. This may be important mainly for a theory of genres, but it can also guide the textual critic —both when he knows from other criteria that there is an error and when other criteria turn up none. The flores do verde pino in Dinis 16 would be another, if the respondent is not the boy. Neither inanimate addressees, such as cervas Meogo 4 and ondas Codax 7 , nor apostrophes to Deus are counted, being rhetorical devices.
Around thirty examples of cited discourse are not encompassed here: Emendatio actionis causa When it comes to emending manifest errors, knowledge of scripts and of the rhetoric by which they are articulated can be as important as form, grammar or paleography, and the solution can come from all of these. V 15 rreyto BV In v. And what would e que trovava mean here anyway —without a complement?
More important, it fails to supply a needed link in the sequence of actions. The proposal a que tornava Cohen It also rests on a straightforward paleographic explanation of the error.
But paleography is not textual criticism. The strongest arguments in favor of tornava are pragmatic and rhetorical. The boy has gone away. The girl had thought he was hers but now finds out he loves another. So his tears had not been tears of sorrow because he was leaving her, but tears shed in his anxiety to go back to her rival.
And there is some metapoetic comedy here: For this metapoetic humor to be activated, tornava is needed. Without it the poem would not work either as action or as rhetoric. The sequence of events would be left unclear and the play of rhetoric incomplete, since we would not be told that the boy left the girl to return to the other. But what if an error is not revealed by any flaw in meter, grammar or sense? Can we detect a mistake solely on the basis of pragmatics?
If a reading stands up to other checks but produces a script that is anomalous within the corpus, do we have a right to suspect its reading? Are we obliged to change it —as much as if the verse were ungrammatical or unmetrical? Well, no, not necessarily.
There are a few anomalous poems, texts for whose action we find no parallel. The Gay Amigos? If instead of using pragmatics to correct something that makes no sense as in Vinhal 7 , we are faced with a text that apparently does make sense, where there is no problem with meter or grammar, I think we can still identify a pragmatic flaw with out the idea, but she leaps at the possibility of an elipsis.
Take this song of Nuno Porco 1 , maintaining for the sake of argument the reading of the manuscripts in the refrain There is only one morphological indicator of the gender of the speaker and that is the word namorado, copied in full only in the third verse since the refrain is truncated, as usual, after the first strophe. Ernesto Monaci corrected the reading to namorada in and all editors have followed suit. Did they overlook the possibility that this song deliberately breaks the rules of the genre?
There is no boy- to-boy discourse in this genre Every Night? In the last strophe we read: Can that be right? Is this world so racy that the friend can tell the girl she spends every night listening to the boy complaining about his frustrated desires?
Well, is there any other evidence of this plot? Here is the text. See Cohen In Galician-Portuguese lyric, homosexuality only figures in songs of mockery and insult. V Why should we not read cada noite in v. It is metrically and grammatically flawless. The reading of V is cadmorre. What is that supposed to mean? Why prefer cadmorre to the fully comprehensible cada noite?
Well, can the friend really be spending her nights with the boy and then telling the girl about it?
So how did cada noite get there? Luckily, the error in V had been corrected by Monaci in , before B was rediscovered in , so his critical judgement could not be corrupted He proposed, and nearly all editors have printed, ca el morre.
The Machados , IV: Nothing else in the text backs up cada noite, while the parallel in v. So a pragmatic grammar again serves as a check, invalidating one reading and backing up the other.
The Brazen Hussy? How far are we willing to go? How many metrically and grammatically perfectly formed texts are we going to touch? See Cohen forthcoming.
Both poems are parodies of the kind of script we find in Esquio 1. Des que nos vimos, assi nos aven: Des que nos vimos, vede-lo que faz: B , f. But Tavani, following other editors, places a comma after vi and translates: This rendering shows the editor feels the need for a more fluid syntax, since the conjunction e is not in his text, and it is that conjunction which allows the syntax of the fourth verse to flow into the fifth.
In this respect he was prescient: This change makes pragmatic sense too: There is no text where a girl says she was the one to initiate the fala at the beginning of the relationship, while there is good evidence that by custom the boy must take the initiative So a scribal error can be detected by an analysis of syntax and form, and then confirmed by our understanding of pragmatic 17 Once the relationship is underway the girl can seize the initiative, but when it comes to asking for reconciliation it is again the boy who usually makes an offer by a ratio of 3: See Johan Airas 10, v.
A few times there are several errors in the space of a few verses which render them nearly unintelligible and the textual critic knows he must reconstruct syntax and sense or resort to cruces for example, Porto Carreiro 4, vv.
Elsewhere the problem lies hidden precisely because the text seems to make sense; but a pragmatic check sounds the alarm. Perhaps the most telling example is the refrain of Zorro 4, where the text of Celso Cunha reads like this: But the text should read: Cunha sigo Braga: Cunha 4 ma B o Nunes: Machado , V: Perhaps the first thing to observe about his text is that both B and V read uoss.
Cunha, working from a photograph, thought B might read noss The expression does not even occur in this genre Then there is the question of syntax: In Braga changed migo to sigo, which would refer to the king, subject of the first clause.
From these three corrections emerges a text that makes sense. Yet for Cunha all three changes are wrong-headed. But since when does mommy take a trip on a boat, let alone with such an entourage? Viviane Cunha picks this up: But who could this family friend be? There is no such thing in this genre as an unidentified addressee involved in 18 Machado , V: That is in no way parallel to the usage that Cunha alleges here. And what connection could there be between these activities and the relationship of boy and girl?
And other personae do not just float by and then float off with mother and daughter in a boat! But even supposing all this were possible, what would it mean? The question makes no sense: The story Cunha constructs is based on a series of misunderstandings and mistakes: He shows how puzzled he is by insisting that iran nas barcas means that they will go to the boats, just for a look Bolseiro 4, v.
She speaks of the destruction of an ancient symbolic code. But this is a second degree illusion, the result of trying to interpret a badly flawed text. Three minor errors, all easy to correct and already corrected before Celso Cunha prepared his edition, badly distort the sense of the refrain, which should be: He could have added Roi Fernandiz 7 and Codax 3 where the irmanas are invited to go along too.
Some spurious nasals seemed to make sense, and therefore went undetected; for example, Charinho 4, v. And in the pastorela of Sevilha it is not clear that Santiago is a destination; it may be the location of the activity he took part in pilgrimage festivities in Santiago.
But the textual critic cannot adhere to a principle that says: The inflexible defense of incomprehensible readings is no virtue, any more than the defacement of sound readings through ignorance or overconfidence. Examination of the text for errors, says Housman, is a science In examinatio we practice a kind of epistemology, a theory of what we can know about the text and how.
We rely on a series of checks, including pragmatic ones. In the refrain of Zorro 4 there is no error in grammar or meter: The pragmatic grammar does not allow such a script: So mha filha must be vocative, and the other corrections follow automatically.
Why, then, does Cunha not accept changes to the text here? After all, he accepts and proposes changes elsewhere Pragmatic implications show something is badly wrong with the reading of the manuscripts.
Varnhagen, Braga and Nunes saw this, but Cunha does not, in effect, recognize pragmatics as a check, like meter and grammar. Maybe if he had studied action as well as he studied hiatus, elision and synalepha he would have edited the text differently Cunha accepts the transposition of Braga in Zorro 6, v.
In Zorro 1, v. It is interesting to note that Nunes , II: Otherwise the first verse of the refrain would be a syllable longer than the second —a phenomenon without parallel in the corpus assuming Zorro 5, v.
Fiinda The textual critic, like a judge, hears expert witnesses testify as to the soundness of the manuscripts and the plausibility of proposed emendations.
To criticize or defend any reading he needs evidence and arguments.
It is not enough to say, as some editors do, that a given word or letter is clearly visible in the manuscripts. Visibility is no guarantor of soundness. In examinatio perception is not knowledge. But is there such a thing as knowledge in examinatio? Ludwig Wittgenstein writes: In examinatio and in emendatio we invoke parallels, and this shows we believe a system can tell us what is right or wrong.
It is because we trust these systems that we accept or reject a reading based on metrics or historical grammar. To the requirements of form, grammar, and sense we should add pragmatics as another system of verification. To judge, we need information and criteria, and to have these for pragmatics we need a grammar, a systematic description. Only within a system can we test an hypothesis, prove or disprove it Wittgenstein A grammar cannot necessarily decide questions of textual criticism even in syntax, but it can tell us that such and such a construction exists or does not.