Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

The Tupí-Guaraní languages used in this study (in green) and the Tupían (non-TG) Awetí (in blue), and Mawé (in red), along with the distribution of the TG archaeological record (black dots).

Prepared by the authors with QGIS 3 [29], based on based on public domain data and raster images from “Natural Earth”, including data from [3032] and an unpublished database by Corrêa and Noelli.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Cognacy for each language pair used in the main analysis, ranging from 0 (full difference) to 1 (identity).

The cognacy diversity [44] for all languages is 15%. If Mawé and Awetí are excluded, the value is 14%.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

The Tupían languages with the sub-branches of the Mawé-Awetí-Tupí-Guaraní branch emphasized.

Adapted from [21].

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Table 1.

Cognates shared by Mawé and Awetí not present in TG (in yellow) and cognates shared by Awetí and TG (in blue) not present in Mawé.

Tupinambá is taken as a representative of the PTG descendants. The numbers in the last column refer to TG languages whose concepts are cognates with the Tupinambá word provided, illustrating cognates in other branches of TG: Avá-Canoeiro (1), Wayampi (2), Guajajara (3), Parakanã (4), Asuriní Xingu (5), Kamajurá (6).

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

Cognacy sample from our database.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

Concept coverage for the languages used in this study from [16].

More »

Table 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Output of the phylogeographical model.

Brightness of edge colors (blue shades) indicates the mean common ancestor height, with darker colors indicating older inferred movements. Geographic areas in red indicate the 80% confidence for location of intermediate nodes. An interactive visualization is available online at https://tupiguarani.netlify.app/ and in the supplementary material. Prepared by the authors with SpreaD3 version 0.9.6 [109], based on public domain data and raster images from “Natural Earth” for political boundaries and hydrography.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

NeighborNet illustrating the reticular relationships from the data used in the study, built using rates of shared cognacy.

The colors correspond to the groups in Fig 6.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Fig 6.

The maximum clade credibility tree from the “full” model.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Table 4.

Node height and 95% HPD for the most important splits in the tree.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Table 5.

Lexical innovations in our Group Ib (Wayampi, Tekó, and Zo’e).

Some, not shared by Zo’e, took place when Wayampi and Tekó were already in the French Guiana, as the source of the borrowings indicates. The word for ‘timbo liana’ and the plural marker are exclusive to these languages.

More »

Table 5 Expand