The present paper proposes an evaluation of some of the most important hypotheses of Aryon Rodrigues, whose work stands to this day among the greatest references in the study of the languages and the linguistics of Native South America, in both sides of the Atlantic, besides spanning six decades of the last century and the first decades of the present one. In doing so, we take as our starting point the state of the art in the studies of historical linguistics and of the South American indigenous languages. Included within the scope of this review are hypotheses such as that of a genetic relation between the Tupí stock and the Karib family ('Tupi-Karib hypothesis'; Rodrigues 1985a______. 1985a. Evidence for Tupi-Carib relationships. In: Harriet Klein Manelis & Louisa R Stark. South American Indian languages: retrospect and prospect. Austin: University of Texas Press. p. 371-404., 2003b______. 2003b. Evidências de relações Tupí-Karíb. In: Eleonora Albano et al. (org.) Saudades da língua. Campinas: Mercado de Letras, v. 1, p. 393-410., 2007a______. 2007a. Linguística comparativa e pré-história dos povos indígenas sul-americanos: a hipótese Tupí-Karíb e as relações genéticas entre Tupí, Karíb e Macro-Jê. In: Thays Cristófaro Silva & Heliana. Mello (orgs). Conferências do V Congresso Internacional da Associação Brasileira de Linguística. Belo Horizonte: FALE/UFMG, p. 165-176.) and the suggestions of an even more inclusive grouping that would cluster the Macro-Jê stock as well, along with Tupí and Karíb, in a single phylum-like group. The scientific import of such hypotheses, and the consequent role they have played in the broader landscape of the studies of indigenous languages, in particular of the historical comparative investigation of these languages, are brought to fore. Our attention here is aimed at the details of the argumentation and the methodological rigor behind each of the proposals put forward by Rodrigues, whether the hypotheses in question relate to the establishment of particular genetic groupings, to the postulation of particular diachronic developments or to the phonetic and phonological underpinning of these patterns. The latter in particular are inherently fraught with consequences for the study of language change and, for this reason, provide a thoroughly original take on some of the major issues in phonological theory (Rodrigues 1981______. 1981. Nasalização e fronteira de palavra em Maxakalí. Anais do V Encontro Nacional de Linguística, v.2, 305-311. Rio de Janeiro: Pontifícia Universidade Católica., 1986a______. 1986a. Silêncio, pausa e nasalização. Anais do VIII Encontro Nacional de Linguística, 153-158. Rio de Janeiro: Pontifícia Universidade Católica., 2003c______. 2003c. Silêncio, nasalidade e laringalidade em línguas indígenas brasileiras. Letras de Hoje, Porto Alegre, v. 38, n. 4: 11-24.). Rodrigues' works on the internal classification of the Tupi-Guarani family (Rodrigues 1945______. 1945. Diferenças fonéticas entre o Tupi e o Guarani. Separata dos Arquivos do Museu Paranaense vol. 4: 333-354., 1958______. 1958. Classication of Tupi-Guarani. International Journal of American Linguistics 24 (3): 231-234., 1978______. 1978. A língua dos índios Xetá como dialeto Guarani. Cadernos de Estudos Linguísticos 1:7-11., 1985b______. 1985b. Relações internas na família linguística Tupi-Guarani. Revista de Antropologia27/28:33-53.), the reconstruction of proto-Tupi (Rodrigues 1966______. 1966. Classificação da língua dos Cinta-Larga. Revista de Antropologia 14:27-30., 1980______. 1980a. Tupi-Guarani e Munduruku: evidências lexicais e fonológicas de parentesco genético. Estudos Linguísticos. Anais dos Seminários do GEL, v.3: 194-209., 2005______. 2005. As vogais orais do Proto-Tupi. In: Aryon Dall’Igna Rodrigues & Ana Suelly Arruda Câmara Cabral. (ors.) Novos Estudos sobre Línguas Indígenas. Brasília: Editora da UnB, p. 35-46., 2007b______. 2007b. As consoantes do Proto-Tupi. In: Ana Suelly Arruda Câmara Cabral & Aryon Dall’Igna Rodrigues (ors.) Línguas e culturas Tupí. Campinas: Editora Curt Nimuendajú, p. 167-203.; Rodrigues, Cabral & Silva 2006______, Ana Suelly Arruda Câmara Cabral. & Beatriz Carretta Côrrea da Silva. 2006. Evidências linguísticas para a reconstrução de um nominalizador de objeto **-mi em Proto-Tupi. Estudos da Lingua(gem) 4(2):21-39.; Rodrigues & Dietrich 1997______ & Wolf Dietrich. 1997. On the linguistic relationship between Mawé and Tupi-Guarani. Diachronica14:265-304.; Hanke, Swadesh & Rodrigues 1958HANKE, Wanda, MORRIS, Swadesh & Aryon Dall’Igna Rodrigues. 1958. Notas de Fonologia Mekéns. In: J. COMAS. (org.) Miscellania Paul Rivet Octagenario Dicata, vol. 2. México: UNAM, p. 187-217.) and the establishment of a Macro-Jê stock (Rodrigues 1986b______. 1986b. Línguas brasileiras: para o conhecimento das línguas indígenas. São Paulo: Loyola., 1992______. 1992. Um marcador Macro-Jê de posse alienável. Anais da 44º Reunião da SBPC., 1999______. 1999. Tupí-Guaraní. In: Robert M. W. Dixon e Alexandra Aikhenvald (eds.) The Amazonian Languages. Cambridge University Press., 2000b) are given special attention as witnesses to his command, and thoughtful application, of the comparative method. By way of this review of the scientific merit, place and legacy of Rodrigues' hypotheses in the fields of historical and synchronic linguistics of the indigenous languages of South America, we hope to characterize and portray, with some amount of detail and supported by a balanced and enlightened evaluation, his career as a leading language scientist.
historical linguistics; indigenous languages; comparative method; linguistic theory