This entry has been retired and is featured here only for bookkeeping purposes. Either
the entry has been replaced with one or more more accurate entries or it has been retired
because it was based on a misunderstanding to begin with.
E16/E17/E18/E19 lists two languages Kanamari
[knm] and Katukina
[kav] as per the below.
1,330 (Moore 2006). 100 Tsohom-Djapa speakers (Crevels 2007)
No known L1 speakers. Ethnic population: 590 (2008 FUNASA).
2,750 (2006 FUNASA).
Different from Panoan Katukína
[knt] in Amazonas and Acre.
Amazonas, upper regions of Jurua, Jutai, Itaquai rivers.
Western Central Brazil
Tshom-Djapa (Txunhuã Dyapá, Txunhuã-Djapá), Tsohon-Djapa.
Maipurean, Southern, Southern Outlier, Piro
Catuquina, Katukina do Jutaí, Katukina do Rio Biá, Pidá-Djapá
The language matching the name, location, population and dialect information of
[knm] entry, is well-known from the linguistic (e.g.,
Francesc Queixalós and dos Anjos G.S., Zoraide 2006 , Francesc Queixalós 2007 ,
Groth, Christa 1985 , Ishy de Magalhães, Priscila Hanako 2012 ,
Stan Anonby and David J. Holbrook 2010 , Carvalho, José Cândido de Melo 1955 )
and ethnographic (e.g., Julio Cesar Melatti 1981 , Verneau, R. 1921 )
literature. But this language is not, as the E16/E17/E18/E19 classification has
it, a Maipurean Arawakan language closest to Piro (Yine)
[yib]. The idea that it is closely related to Piro ultimately stems from a name
confusion with the Canamaré vocabulary in
von Martius, Carl Friedrich Philip 1867 . This Canamaré vocabulary is indeed so close to
Piro as to count as Piro, but it is not the same language the Kanamari indicated
by the data in the Kanamari [knm] entry, as shown already by
Paul Rivet 1920 . Turning now to the Katukina
[kav]-entry, its location, classification, alternative names and dialect names
(but not speaker number) corresponds to the Katukina known in the literature
dos Anjos, Zoraide 2005 ). However, this Katukina [kav]
language is mutually intelligible with Kanamari [knm]
( dos Anjos, Zoraide 2011: 8-16 ) and the two should count
uncontroversially as one entry. Older vocabularies are also similar enough to
count as the same language
( Čestmír Loukotka 1963 , Paul Rivet 1920 ) so there is no reason to
posit a separate entry for a Katukina that existed in the past. Thus,
one of the Kanamari [knm] and Katukina [kav] entries is spurious. The confusion
in this case may have been licensed by the existence of yet more distinct
languages surfacing under the name Katukina, i.e., the Panoan Katukina
( de Aguiar, María Suelí 1992 ) and the problematic Catuquinarú vocabulary
( Paul Rivet 1920 ). See also: Katukína-Kanamarí [knm].