Azevedo, Milton Mariano

Hemeroteca Cientifica Catalana

TORRES, Amadeu / ASSUNÇÃO, Carlos (ed.) (2000): OLIVEIRA, Fernando de (1536): Gramáticada Linguagem Portuguesa. Lisbon: Academia de Ciências de Lisboa, p. 339. [Edição crí-tica, semidiplomática e anastática com um estudo introdutório do Eugenio Coseriu].Over four and a half centuries after its publication, scholars finally have access to Fernão deOliveira’s Grammatica da Lingoagem Portuguesa in a volume that combines a critical edition, asemidiplomatic edition, and a facsimile of the original published in 1536. Prefaced (ix-xii) by J.V. de Pina Martins, President of the Academy of Sciences of Lisbon, this work opens with a tri-partite introduction. Section A, “Abordagem pontual e situacional” (3-26), includes a biographi-cal note (12-15), an annotated bibliography of Oliveira’s works, and a general commentary on hisGramática (17-26). Section B, “Apreciação global” (29-60), includes an essay by Eugenio Cose-riu, “Língua e funcionalidade em Fernão de Oliveira.” After highlighting Oliveira’s view of whatwe now know as phonetics and phonology (twenty four out of the Gramática’s fifty chapters areabout speech sounds), Coseriu rates Oliveira’s ideas on word formation as “a primeira teoria dacomposição das palavras… na história da lingüística românica” (45). Section C (“A nossa edição,”61-77) evaluates the preceding editions and explains the transcription norms adopted. There fo-llow the Edição crítica (79-159), the Edição semidiplomática (161-237) and the Edição Anastáti-ca (239-316).Reading the critical edition is facilitated by writing out abbreviations and transcribing instancesof tilde as m or n as required by orthographic norms. Other user-friendly features include uniformcapitalization of names, use of plain c instead of ç before e and i, and accents (lacking in the origi-nal) where needed to avoid ambiguities, as in crasis (a + a > à, a + as > às, a + o > ò, mod. ao) orin archaic proparoxytone verb forms such as dáremos or podéremos (mod. darmos, pudermos). Thefortysix endnotes (156-159) are particularly enlightening. Replicating the pagination of the originaltext in the critical and semidiplomatic editions facilitates navigating among the three texts to com-pare issues and the solutions. Besides a general index (337-339), which some readers might havepreferred to see at the front of the volume, there are a subject index (319-322) and an onomastic in-dex (323-335). Copyediting is careful and the few minor typos (e.g., conjungações for conjugações(151), ter-se-à for ter-se-á (159), or nestroutos for nestoutros (126)) do not mar the quality of pre-sentation. Finally, the aesthetically pleasing quality of the printing —250 mm × 180 mm size, strongbond opaque paper, 14 point font in the introduction and semidiplomatic edition, 12 point font in thecritical edition, and a very clear facsimile text (155 mm × 105 mm)— makes handling the book par-ticularly gratifying.A comparison with its predecessors shows that Torres and Assunção’s edition is clearly themost thorough to date. The earliest was the Grammatica de Linguagem Portugueza por Fernãod’Oliveira. Segunda edição [the original being considered the first], conforme a de 1536, editedby the Visconde d’Azevedo and Tito de Noronha (Porto: Imprensa Portugueza, 1871). This edi-tion, essentially a transcription from the princeps text, lacks a critical component and, accordingto Torres and Assunção, is marred by “falhas e imperfeições” (64). The next effort, Grammaticada Lingoagem Portuguesa por Fernão de Oliveira, was directed by Rodrigo de Sá Nogueira andedited Aníbal Ferreira Henriques (Lisbon: José Fernandes Júnior, Tipografia Beleza, 1933). It in-cludes an errata list (119-123) of the Azevedo & Noronha edition as well as a useful glossary inwhich, however, Torres and Assunção detect “múltiplas deficiências” (65). The next edition, A“Grammatica” de Fernão d’Oliveyra. Apreciação – Texto Reproduzido do da 1a edição, (1536),was edited by Olmar Guterres da Silveira (Rio de Janeiro: Jornal do Commercio / Rodrigues &Cia, 1954). A note states that this work was intended as a “thesis presented for an examination fora chair of Portuguese at Colégio Pedro II” (3) in Rio de Janeiro.1 It includes photostats (betweenMILTON M. AZEVEDO2801. Presenting a philologically oriented thesis as part of the exams for a tenured teaching position at that se-condary school was a requirement until relatively recently.pages 38 and 39) of the first four pages of the original, a biographical note (11-17), under elevenpages (19-29) of commentary, and an unannotated transcription of the text. The next edition wasA Gramática da Linguagem Portuguesa, by Fernão de Oliveira [with] “Introdução, leitura ac-tualizada e notas” by Maria Leonor Carbalhão Buescu (Lisbon: Imprensa Nacional / Casa daMoeda, 1975). This edition, clearly didactic in scope and intended to be “acessível ao leitor co-mum” (31), uses contemporary spelling and punctuation and is complemented by eighty endnotes.Although appropriate for an introduction to Oliveira’s work, it is insufficient for further scholarlyresearch.Given this publication history, the edition under review is particularly timely, for despite itsbrevity (75 pages), the Gramática occupies a unique position in Romance and Portuguese philo-logy, and the editors go so far as to claim that in Portugal “antecedentemente a Fernão de Oliveiraexistiu apenas a protofilologia” (5). Though it was the first Portuguese grammar published, however,it preceded João de Barros’s Cartinha para aprender a ler and Grammatica da Lingua Portuguesa,respectively, by only three and four years. (Nearly four decades would elapse before publication in1574 of the new works of significance, namely Pero de Magalhães de Gândavo’s Regras que Ensi-nam a Maneira de Escrever and Ortografia da Língua Portuguesa). Nor can it claim to be com-prehensive, for whereas its analysis of sounds is extensive, its morphological analysis is limited andthe chapter on syntax (Ch. XLIX [Da construição])2 is less than two pages long. Coseriu suggests that,despite its brevity, this section has the merit of seeking solutions independent from Latin grammarand defining in their own terms the grammatical categories operational in Portuguese (50). A moredemanding critic, however, might see it as little more than the announcement of a forthcoming bookwhich, regrettably, seems never to have been published: “da construição ou composição da lingua,não dizemos mais, porque temos começada ha obra em que particularmente e com mais compri-mento falamos della” (153).The Gramática’s real interest lies, first, in having treated what was then a language of limitedscope (Silva Neto (1970: 444) points out that according to the census ordered by King João III,Portugal had only 1,122,000 inhabitants). Despite Portugal’s maritime role, Portuguese had barelybegun to project itself beyond its original borders. Nor had it ever played an international rolecomparable to that of Catalan, which had been used in the Llibre de Consolat de Mar, the first me-dieval compilation of maritime law. Further, with Camões’s Os Lusíadas (1572) still nearly fourdecades away, Portuguese was hardly a vehicle for literary production comparable to that ofFrench, Italian or Spanish.Second, although Nebrija’s Gramática de la lengua castellana (1492) presumably inspiredOliveira’s, the latter’s Gramática is a rather different book. Oliveira’s primary concern is withspeech sounds, and while he refers to these as letters, he demonstrates keen intuition on keynotions such as phonemes (Chap. XI, [“Do proprio de cada letra na pronunciação”]), syllablenuclei (Chap. XIX, [“Das sillabas”]), phonotactics (Chaps. XXI, [“Da ordem das letras na sillaba”]and XXII [“Dos começos das sillabas”]), or the role of stress (Chap. XXVIII, [“Do acento”]). Thetentativeness of his terminology understandably reflects the doubts of a scholar who realized hewas dealing with phenomena for which the Greco-Roman grammatical tradition was only par-tially appropriate. Finally, Oliveira sensed that language is far from a monolithic phenomenon,for he also noted an understanding of linguistic variation, whether regional (“... os da Beira têmhas falas e os d’Alentejo outras. E os homens da Estremadura são diferentes dos d’Antre Douroe Minho…” (131)) or social (“... os cavaleiros… têm huns vocabolos e os lavradores outros, eos cortesãos outros, e os religiosos outros...” (131)). His views thus anticipate sociolinguisticconcepts that only in recent decades have been integrated in linguistic analysis. Although scho-lars such as Coseriu in his introductory essay, or Silva Neto in an earlier brief commentary(1970:491) adumbrated these aspects of Oliveira’s work, a detailed interpretative analysis of itsTORRES/ASSUNÇÃO/OLIVEIRA: «GRAMÁTICA DA LINGUAGEM PORTUGUESA» 2812. Bracketed chapter titles have been added by the editors.theoretical underpinnings remains to be done. Torres and Assunção’s edition provides a solidfoundation for this task.MILTON M. AZEVEDOUniversity of California, BerkeleyREFERENCESSILVA NETO, Serafim da (19702): História da Língua Portuguêsa. Rio de Janeiro: Livros de Portugal.FERRO RUIBAL, Xesús (ed.) (1998): Actas do I Coloquio Galego de Fraseoloxía. Santiago deCompostela: Centro Ramón Piñeiro para la Investigación en Humanidades/Xunta de Ga-licia, 332 p.El terme fraseologia, com a concepte lingüístic, és polisèmic (cfr. la p. 172 de les Actes res-senyades): d’una banda denomina el material fraseològic, el conjunt d’unitats fraseològiques (UF)d’una llengua, d’un sector de la societat o d’un escriptor, etc., i de l’altra, és el nom d’una discipli-na lingüística que es dedica a l’estudi del fet fraseològic (idiomàtic). Aquest fet, materialitzat en lesunitats fraseològiques (idiomàtiques), denominades també fraseologismes, frasemes (o idioms),constitueix un fenomen central de la llengua, ignorat durant molt de temps per la descripció lin-güística (77, 139, 140). La fraseologia com a disciplina científica —revitalitzada amb l’ajut de nouscorrents teòrics, com és ara la lingüística cognitiva (140)— actualment sembla viure un dels seusmoments més esplendorosos, més prometedors tant fora com a dins de les fronteres de l’Estat es-panyol (31). Els fraseòlegs gallecs han sabut aprofitar aquest moment propici: entre els dies 15 i 20de setembre de 1997 van organitzar a Santiago de Compostel·la el I Col·loqui Gallec de Fraseolo-gia que va ser —que jo sàpiga— el primer congrés a l’Estat espanyol dedicat exclusivament a pro-blemes de fraseologia. Hem de recordar, però, que no falten aportacions anteriors importants, comles del volum monogràfic sobre fraseologia de la revista Caplletra (núm. 18, publicat el 1995 per laUniversitat de València). L’evolució dels estudis fraseològics hauria de fer possible millorar dife-rents aspectes de la lexicografia fraseològica (tractament de les UF als diccionaris generals) i recu-perar l’endarreriment en el camp de la producció fraseogràfica, o sigui, en la redacció i la publica-ció de diccionaris fraseològics que —com assenyala M. Kótova— tenen una gran importànciacientífica, lingüística i pràctica (255). Per evitar d’inventar as bicicletas (298), o sigui la sopa d’all,els organitzadors van reunir reconeguts especialistes del país i de l’estranger per discutir aspectesfonamentals de la fraseologia. La finalitat principal d’aquest intercanvi d’opinions era establir lesbases dels estudis fraseològics i metafraseogràfics gallecs, i ajudar a dur a bon terme els importantstreballs fraseogràfics realitzats al Centre Ramón Piñeiro.Les Actes d’aquest Col·loqui, publicades en gallec, no sols reprodueixen el text de les 18 con-ferències, precedides d’un resum en anglès i en la llengua en la qual es va fer la intervenció, sinóque també ens faciliten —amb certes llacunes causades per problemes tècnics de l’enregistra-ment— el contingut dels debats. Els editors han preferit conservar el nom i l’ordre original de lessessions, organitzant els materials publicats en 6 apartats, incloent-hi temes previstos, però de fetno tractats: p. ex. les dues comunicacions publicades sota el títol de “Traducción da fraseoloxía”parlen essencialment de l’elaboració d’uns diccionaris fraseològics bilingües. Les conferències iles discussions reproduïdes a les Actes s’organitzen essencialment al voltant dels problemes se-güents:KÁROLY MORVAY282

Torres, Amadeu / Assunçao, Carlos (ed.) (2000): Oliveira, Fernado de (1536): Gramática da Linguagem Portuguesa. Lisbon: Academia de Ciencias de Lisboa, p. 339. [Ediçao crítica, semidiplomática e anastática com un estudo introdutório de Eugenio Coseriu]

Revistes Catalanes amb Accés Obert

TORRES, Amadeu / ASSUNÇÃO, Carlos (ed.) (2000): OLIVEIRA, Fernando de (1536): Gramática
da Linguagem Portuguesa. Lisbon: Academia de Ciências de Lisboa, p. 339. [Edição crí-
tica, semidiplomática e anastática com um estudo introdutório do Eugenio Coseriu].
Over four and a half centuries after its publication, scholars finally have access to Fernão de
Oliveira’s Grammatica da Lingoagem Portuguesa in a volume that combines a critical edition, a
semidiplomatic edition, and a facsimile of the original published in 1536. Prefaced (ix-xii) by J.
V. de Pina Martins, President of the Academy of Sciences of Lisbon, this work opens with a tri-
partite introduction. Section A, “Abordagem pontual e situacional” (3-26), includes a biographi-
cal note (12-15), an annotated bibliography of Oliveira’s works, and a general commentary on his
Gramática (17-26). Section B, “Apreciação global” (29-60), includes an essay by Eugenio Cose-
riu, “Língua e funcionalidade em Fernão de Oliveira.” After highlighting Oliveira’s view of what
we now know as phonetics and phonology (twenty four out of the Gramática’s fifty chapters are
about speech sounds), Coseriu rates Oliveira’s ideas on word formation as “a primeira teoria da
composição das palavras… na história da lingüística românica” (45). Section C (“A nossa edição,”
61-77) evaluates the preceding editions and explains the transcription norms adopted. There fo-
llow the Edição crítica (79-159), the Edição semidiplomática (161-237) and the Edição Anastáti-
ca (239-316).
Reading the critical edition is facilitated by writing out abbreviations and transcribing instances
of tilde as m or n as required by orthographic norms. Other user-friendly features include uniform
capitalization of names, use of plain c instead of ç before e and i, and accents (lacking in the origi-
nal) where needed to avoid ambiguities, as in crasis (a + a > à, a + as > às, a + o > ò, mod. ao) or
in archaic proparoxytone verb forms such as dáremos or podéremos (mod. darmos, pudermos). The
fortysix endnotes (156-159) are particularly enlightening. Replicating the pagination of the original
text in the critical and semidiplomatic editions facilitates navigating among the three texts to com-
pare issues and the solutions. Besides a general index (337-339), which some readers might have
preferred to see at the front of the volume, there are a subject index (319-322) and an onomastic in-
dex (323-335). Copyediting is careful and the few minor typos (e.g., conjungações for conjugações
(151), ter-se-à for ter-se-á (159), or nestroutos for nestoutros (126)) do not mar the quality of pre-
sentation. Finally, the aesthetically pleasing quality of the printing —250 mm × 180 mm size, strong
bond opaque paper, 14 point font in the introduction and semidiplomatic edition, 12 point font in the
critical edition, and a very clear facsimile text (155 mm × 105 mm)— makes handling the book par-
ticularly gratifying.
A comparison with its predecessors shows that Torres and Assunção’s edition is clearly the
most thorough to date. The earliest was the Grammatica de Linguagem Portugueza por Fernão
d’Oliveira. Segunda edição [the original being considered the first], conforme a de 1536, edited
by the Visconde d’Azevedo and Tito de Noronha (Porto: Imprensa Portugueza, 1871). This edi-
tion, essentially a transcription from the princeps text, lacks a critical component and, according
to Torres and Assunção, is marred by “falhas e imperfeições” (64). The next effort, Grammatica
da Lingoagem Portuguesa por Fernão de Oliveira, was directed by Rodrigo de Sá Nogueira and
edited Aníbal Ferreira Henriques (Lisbon: José Fernandes Júnior, Tipografia Beleza, 1933). It in-
cludes an errata list (119-123) of the Azevedo & Noronha edition as well as a useful glossary in
which, however, Torres and Assunção detect “múltiplas deficiências” (65). The next edition, A
“Grammatica” de Fernão d’Oliveyra. Apreciação – Texto Reproduzido do da 1a edição, (1536),
was edited by Olmar Guterres da Silveira (Rio de Janeiro: Jornal do Commercio / Rodrigues &
Cia, 1954). A note states that this work was intended as a “thesis presented for an examination for
a chair of Portuguese at Colégio Pedro II” (3) in Rio de Janeiro.1 It includes photostats (between
MILTON M. AZEVEDO280
1. Presenting a philologically oriented thesis as part of the exams for a tenured teaching position at that se-
condary school was a requirement until relatively recently.
pages 38 and 39) of the first four pages of the original, a biographical note (11-17), under eleven
pages (19-29) of commentary, and an unannotated transcription of the text. The next edition was
A Gramática da Linguagem Portuguesa, by Fernão de Oliveira [with] “Introdução, leitura ac-
tualizada e notas” by Maria Leonor Carbalhão Buescu (Lisbon: Imprensa Nacional / Casa da
Moeda, 1975). This edition, clearly didactic in scope and intended to be “acessível ao leitor co-
mum” (31), uses contemporary spelling and punctuation and is complemented by eighty endnotes.
Although appropriate for an introduction to Oliveira’s work, it is insufficient for further scholarly
research.
Given this publication history, the edition under review is particularly timely, for despite its
brevity (75 pages), the Gramática occupies a unique position in Romance and Portuguese philo-
logy, and the editors go so far as to claim that in Portugal “antecedentemente a Fernão de Oliveira
existiu apenas a protofilologia” (5). Though it was the first Portuguese grammar published, however,
it preceded João de Barros’s Cartinha para aprender a ler and Grammatica da Lingua Portuguesa,
respectively, by only three and four years. (Nearly four decades would elapse before publication in
1574 of the new works of significance, namely Pero de Magalhães de Gândavo’s Regras que Ensi-
nam a Maneira de Escrever and Ortografia da Língua Portuguesa). Nor can it claim to be com-
prehensive, for whereas its analysis of sounds is extensive, its morphological analysis is limited and
the chapter on syntax (Ch. XLIX [Da construição])2 is less than two pages long. Coseriu suggests that,
despite its brevity, this section has the merit of seeking solutions independent from Latin grammar
and defining in their own terms the grammatical categories operational in Portuguese (50). A more
demanding critic, however, might see it as little more than the announcement of a forthcoming book
which, regrettably, seems never to have been published: “da construição ou composição da lingua,
não dizemos mais, porque temos começada ha obra em que particularmente e com mais compri-
mento falamos della” (153).
The Gramática’s real interest lies, first, in having treated what was then a language of limited
scope (Silva Neto (1970: 444) points out that according to the census ordered by King João III,
Portugal had only 1,122,000 inhabitants). Despite Portugal’s maritime role, Portuguese had barely
begun to project itself beyond its original borders. Nor had it ever played an international role
comparable to that of Catalan, which had been used in the Llibre de Consolat de Mar, the first me-
dieval compilation of maritime law. Further, with Camões’s Os Lusíadas (1572) still nearly four
decades away, Portuguese was hardly a vehicle for literary production comparable to that of
French, Italian or Spanish.
Second, although Nebrija’s Gramática de la lengua castellana (1492) presumably inspired
Oliveira’s, the latter’s Gramática is a rather different book. Oliveira’s primary concern is with
speech sounds, and while he refers to these as letters, he demonstrates keen intuition on key
notions such as phonemes (Chap. XI, [“Do proprio de cada letra na pronunciação”]), syllable
nuclei (Chap. XIX, [“Das sillabas”]), phonotactics (Chaps. XXI, [“Da ordem das letras na sillaba”]
and XXII [“Dos começos das sillabas”]), or the role of stress (Chap. XXVIII, [“Do acento”]). The
tentativeness of his terminology understandably reflects the doubts of a scholar who realized he
was dealing with phenomena for which the Greco-Roman grammatical tradition was only par-
tially appropriate. Finally, Oliveira sensed that language is far from a monolithic phenomenon,
for he also noted an understanding of linguistic variation, whether regional (“... os da Beira têm
has falas e os d’Alentejo outras. E os homens da Estremadura são diferentes dos d’Antre Douro
e Minho…” (131)) or social (“... os cavaleiros… têm huns vocabolos e os lavradores outros, e
os cortesãos outros, e os religiosos outros...” (131)). His views thus anticipate sociolinguistic
concepts that only in recent decades have been integrated in linguistic analysis. Although scho-
lars such as Coseriu in his introductory essay, or Silva Neto in an earlier brief commentary
(1970:491) adumbrated these aspects of Oliveira’s work, a detailed interpretative analysis of its
TORRES/ASSUNÇÃO/OLIVEIRA: «GRAMÁTICA DA LINGUAGEM PORTUGUESA» 281
2. Bracketed chapter titles have been added by the editors.
theoretical underpinnings remains to be done. Torres and Assunção’s edition provides a solid
foundation for this task.
MILTON M. AZEVEDO
University of California, Berkeley
REFERENCES
SILVA NETO, Serafim da (19702): História da Língua Portuguêsa. Rio de Janeiro: Livros de Portugal.
FERRO RUIBAL, Xesús (ed.) (1998): Actas do I Coloquio Galego de Fraseoloxía. Santiago de
Compostela: Centro Ramón Piñeiro para la Investigación en Humanidades/Xunta de Ga-
licia, 332 p.
El terme fraseologia, com a concepte lingüístic, és polisèmic (cfr. la p. 172 de les Actes res-
senyades): d’una banda denomina el material fraseològic, el conjunt d’unitats fraseològiques (UF)
d’una llengua, d’un sector de la societat o d’un escriptor, etc., i de l’altra, és el nom d’una discipli-
na lingüística que es dedica a l’estudi del fet fraseològic (idiomàtic). Aquest fet, materialitzat en les
unitats fraseològiques (idiomàtiques), denominades també fraseologismes, frasemes (o idioms),
constitueix un fenomen central de la llengua, ignorat durant molt de temps per la descripció lin-
güística (77, 139, 140). La fraseologia com a disciplina científica —revitalitzada amb l’ajut de nous
corrents teòrics, com és ara la lingüística cognitiva (140)— actualment sembla viure un dels seus
moments més esplendorosos, més prometedors tant fora com a dins de les fronteres de l’Estat es-
panyol (31). Els fraseòlegs gallecs han sabut aprofitar aquest moment propici: entre els dies 15 i 20
de setembre de 1997 van organitzar a Santiago de Compostel·la el I Col·loqui Gallec de Fraseolo-
gia que va ser —que jo sàpiga— el primer congrés a l’Estat espanyol dedicat exclusivament a pro-
blemes de fraseologia. Hem de recordar, però, que no falten aportacions anteriors importants, com
les del volum monogràfic sobre fraseologia de la revista Caplletra (núm. 18, publicat el 1995 per la
Universitat de València). L’evolució dels estudis fraseològics hauria de fer possible millorar dife-
rents aspectes de la lexicografia fraseològica (tractament de les UF als diccionaris generals) i recu-
perar l’endarreriment en el camp de la producció fraseogràfica, o sigui, en la redacció i la publica-
ció de diccionaris fraseològics que —com assenyala M. Kótova— tenen una gran importància
científica, lingüística i pràctica (255). Per evitar d’inventar as bicicletas (298), o sigui la sopa d’all,
els organitzadors van reunir reconeguts especialistes del país i de l’estranger per discutir aspectes
fonamentals de la fraseologia. La finalitat principal d’aquest intercanvi d’opinions era establir les
bases dels estudis fraseològics i metafraseogràfics gallecs, i ajudar a dur a bon terme els importants
treballs fraseogràfics realitzats al Centre Ramón Piñeiro.
Les Actes d’aquest Col·loqui, publicades en gallec, no sols reprodueixen el text de les 18 con-
ferències, precedides d’un resum en anglès i en la llengua en la qual es va fer la intervenció, sinó
que també ens faciliten —amb certes llacunes causades per problemes tècnics de l’enregistra-
ment— el contingut dels debats. Els editors han preferit conservar el nom i l’ordre original de les
sessions, organitzant els materials publicats en 6 apartats, incloent-hi temes previstos, però de fet
no tractats: p. ex. les dues comunicacions publicades sota el títol de “Traducción da fraseoloxía”
parlen essencialment de l’elaboració d’uns diccionaris fraseològics bilingües. Les conferències i
les discussions reproduïdes a les Actes s’organitzen essencialment al voltant dels problemes se-
güents:
KÁROLY MORVAY282


Torres, Amadeu / Assunçao, Carlos (ed.) (2000): Oliveira, Fernado de (1536): Gramática da Linguagem Portuguesa. Lisbon: Academia de Ciencias de Lisboa, p. 339. [Ediçao crítica, semidiplomática e anastática com un estudo introdutório de Eugenio Cose

http://revistes.iec.cat/index.php/ER/article/download/38288/38271

Torres, Amadeu / Assunçao, Carlos (ed.) (2000): Oliveira, Fernado de (1536): Gramática da Linguagem Portuguesa. Lisbon: Academia de Ciencias de Lisboa, p. 339. [Ediçao crítica, semidiplomática e anastática com un estudo introdutório de Eugenio Cose

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Hemeroteca Cientifica Catalana

Revistes Catalanes amb Accés Obert