\documentclass[11pt,twoside]{article}\makeatletter

\IfFileExists{xcolor.sty}%
  {\RequirePackage{xcolor}}%
  {\RequirePackage{color}}
\usepackage{colortbl}
\usepackage{wrapfig}
\usepackage{ifxetex}
\ifxetex
  \usepackage{fontspec}
  \usepackage{xunicode}
  \catcode`⃥=\active \def⃥{\textbackslash}
  \catcode`❴=\active \def❴{\{}
  \catcode`❵=\active \def❵{\}}
  \def\textJapanese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK JP}}
  \def\textChinese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK SC}}
  \def\textKorean{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK KR}}
  \setmonofont{DejaVu Sans Mono}
  
\else
  \IfFileExists{utf8x.def}%
   {\usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc}
      \PrerenderUnicode{–}
    }%
   {\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}}
  \usepackage[english]{babel}
  \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
  \usepackage{float}
  \usepackage[]{ucs}
  \uc@dclc{8421}{default}{\textbackslash }
  \uc@dclc{10100}{default}{\{}
  \uc@dclc{10101}{default}{\}}
  \uc@dclc{8491}{default}{\AA{}}
  \uc@dclc{8239}{default}{\,}
  \uc@dclc{20154}{default}{ }
  \uc@dclc{10148}{default}{>}
  \def\textschwa{\rotatebox{-90}{e}}
  \def\textJapanese{}
  \def\textChinese{}
  \IfFileExists{tipa.sty}{\usepackage{tipa}}{}
\fi
\def\exampleFont{\ttfamily\small}
\DeclareTextSymbol{\textpi}{OML}{25}
\usepackage{relsize}
\RequirePackage{array}
\def\@testpach{\@chclass
 \ifnum \@lastchclass=6 \@ne \@chnum \@ne \else
  \ifnum \@lastchclass=7 5 \else
   \ifnum \@lastchclass=8 \tw@ \else
    \ifnum \@lastchclass=9 \thr@@
   \else \z@
   \ifnum \@lastchclass = 10 \else
   \edef\@nextchar{\expandafter\string\@nextchar}%
   \@chnum
   \if \@nextchar c\z@ \else
    \if \@nextchar l\@ne \else
     \if \@nextchar r\tw@ \else
   \z@ \@chclass
   \if\@nextchar |\@ne \else
    \if \@nextchar !6 \else
     \if \@nextchar @7 \else
      \if \@nextchar (8 \else
       \if \@nextchar )9 \else
  10
  \@chnum
  \if \@nextchar m\thr@@\else
   \if \@nextchar p4 \else
    \if \@nextchar b5 \else
   \z@ \@chclass \z@ \@preamerr \z@ \fi \fi \fi \fi
   \fi \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi}
\gdef\arraybackslash{\let\\=\@arraycr}
\def\@textsubscript#1{{\m@th\ensuremath{_{\mbox{\fontsize\sf@size\z@#1}}}}}
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\def\abbr{}
\def\corr{}
\def\expan{}
\def\gap{}
\def\orig{}
\def\reg{}
\def\ref{}
\def\sic{}
\def\persName{}\def\name{}
\def\placeName{}
\def\orgName{}
\def\textcal#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Calligraphy}#1}}
\def\textgothic#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Blackletter}#1}}
\def\textlarge#1{{\large #1}}
\def\textoverbar#1{\ensuremath{\overline{#1}}}
\def\textquoted#1{‘#1’}
\def\textsmall#1{{\small #1}}
\def\textsubscript#1{\@textsubscript{\selectfont#1}}
\def\textxi{\ensuremath{\xi}}
\def\titlem{\itshape}
\newenvironment{biblfree}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{bibl}{}{}
\newenvironment{byline}{\vskip6pt\itshape\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{citbibl}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docAuthor}{\ifvmode\vskip4pt\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont\fi\itshape}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docDate}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docImprint}{\vskip 6pt}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docTitle}{\vskip6pt\bfseries\fontsize{22pt}{25pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{msHead}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{msItem}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{rubric}{}{}
\newenvironment{titlePart}{}{\par }

\newcolumntype{L}[1]{){\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{C}[1]{){\centering\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{R}[1]{){\raggedleft\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{P}[1]{){\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{B}[1]{){\arraybackslash}b{#1}}
\newcolumntype{M}[1]{){\arraybackslash}m{#1}}
\definecolor{label}{gray}{0.75}
\def\unusedattribute#1{\sout{\textcolor{label}{#1}}}
\DeclareRobustCommand*{\xref}{\hyper@normalise\xref@}
\def\xref@#1#2{\hyper@linkurl{#2}{#1}}
\begingroup
\catcode`\_=\active
\gdef_#1{\ensuremath{\sb{\mathrm{#1}}}}
\endgroup
\mathcode`\_=\string"8000
\catcode`\_=12\relax

\usepackage[a4paper,twoside,lmargin=1in,rmargin=1in,tmargin=1in,bmargin=1in,marginparwidth=0.75in]{geometry}
\usepackage{framed}

\definecolor{shadecolor}{gray}{0.95}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage[normalem]{ulem}
\usepackage{fancyvrb}
\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{marginnote}

\renewcommand{\@cite}[1]{#1}


\renewcommand*{\marginfont}{\itshape\footnotesize}

\def\Gin@extensions{.pdf,.png,.jpg,.mps,.tif}

  \pagestyle{fancy}

\usepackage[pdftitle={Volume XIX Issue X Version I (},
 pdfauthor={}]{hyperref}
\hyperbaseurl{}

	 \paperwidth210mm
	 \paperheight297mm
              
\def\@pnumwidth{1.55em}
\def\@tocrmarg {2.55em}
\def\@dotsep{4.5}
\setcounter{tocdepth}{3}
\clubpenalty=8000
\emergencystretch 3em
\hbadness=4000
\hyphenpenalty=400
\pretolerance=750
\tolerance=2000
\vbadness=4000
\widowpenalty=10000

\renewcommand\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex \@plus -0.5ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large\bfseries}}
\renewcommand\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex\@plus -0.5ex \@minus- .2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large}}
\renewcommand\subsubsection{\@startsection{subsubsection}{3}{\z@}%
     {-1.5ex\@plus -0.35ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\large}}
\renewcommand\paragraph{\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{\z@}%
     {-1ex \@plus-0.35ex \@minus -0.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize}}
\renewcommand\subparagraph{\@startsection{subparagraph}{5}{\parindent}%
     {1.5ex \@plus1ex \@minus .2ex}%
     {-1em}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize\bfseries}}


\def\l@section#1#2{\addpenalty{\@secpenalty} \addvspace{1.0em plus 1pt}
 \@tempdima 1.5em \begingroup
 \parindent \z@ \rightskip \@pnumwidth 
 \parfillskip -\@pnumwidth 
 \bfseries \leavevmode #1\hfil \hbox to\@pnumwidth{\hss #2}\par
 \endgroup}
\def\l@subsection{\@dottedtocline{2}{1.5em}{2.3em}}
\def\l@subsubsection{\@dottedtocline{3}{3.8em}{3.2em}}
\def\l@paragraph{\@dottedtocline{4}{7.0em}{4.1em}}
\def\l@subparagraph{\@dottedtocline{5}{10em}{5em}}
\@ifundefined{c@section}{\newcounter{section}}{}
\@ifundefined{c@chapter}{\newcounter{chapter}}{}
\newif\if@mainmatter 
\@mainmattertrue
\def\chaptername{Chapter}
\def\frontmatter{%
  \pagenumbering{roman}
  \def\thechapter{\@roman\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\roman{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@roman\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\roman{section}}
  \def\@chapapp{}%
}
\def\mainmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \def\thechapter{\@arabic\c@chapter}
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \pagenumbering{arabic}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{6}
  \def\@chapapp{\chaptername}%
  \def\theHchapter{\arabic{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@arabic\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\arabic{section}}
}
\def\backmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{2}
  \def\@chapapp{\appendixname}%
  \def\thechapter{\@Alph\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\Alph{chapter}}
  \appendix
}
\newenvironment{bibitemlist}[1]{%
   \list{\@biblabel{\@arabic\c@enumiv}}%
       {\settowidth\labelwidth{\@biblabel{#1}}%
        \leftmargin\labelwidth
        \advance\leftmargin\labelsep
        \@openbib@code
        \usecounter{enumiv}%
        \let\p@enumiv\@empty
        \renewcommand\theenumiv{\@arabic\c@enumiv}%
	}%
  \sloppy
  \clubpenalty4000
  \@clubpenalty \clubpenalty
  \widowpenalty4000%
  \sfcode`\.\@m}%
  {\def\@noitemerr
    {\@latex@warning{Empty `bibitemlist' environment}}%
    \endlist}

\def\tableofcontents{\section*{\contentsname}\@starttoc{toc}}
\parskip0pt
\parindent1em
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\newenvironment{reflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\itshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{sansreflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\upshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{specHead}[2]%
 {\vspace{20pt}\hrule\vspace{10pt}%
  \phantomsection\label{#1}\markright{#2}%

  \pdfbookmark[2]{#2}{#1}%
  \hspace{-0.75in}{\bfseries\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont#2}%
  }{}
      \def\TheFullDate{2018 2019-01-15 (revised: 2018 15 January 2019)}
\def\TheID{\makeatother }
\def\TheDate{2018 2019-01-15}
\title{Volume XIX Issue X Version I (}
\author{}\makeatletter 
\makeatletter
\newcommand*{\cleartoleftpage}{%
  \clearpage
    \if@twoside
    \ifodd\c@page
      \hbox{}\newpage
      \if@twocolumn
        \hbox{}\newpage
      \fi
    \fi
  \fi
}
\makeatother
\makeatletter
\thispagestyle{empty}
\markright{\@title}\markboth{\@title}{\@author}
\renewcommand\small{\@setfontsize\small{9pt}{11pt}\abovedisplayskip 8.5\p@ plus3\p@ minus4\p@
\belowdisplayskip \abovedisplayskip
\abovedisplayshortskip \z@ plus2\p@
\belowdisplayshortskip 4\p@ plus2\p@ minus2\p@
\def\@listi{\leftmargin\leftmargini
               \topsep 2\p@ plus1\p@ minus1\p@
               \parsep 2\p@ plus\p@ minus\p@
               \itemsep 1pt}
}
\makeatother
\fvset{frame=single,numberblanklines=false,xleftmargin=5mm,xrightmargin=5mm}
\fancyhf{} 
\setlength{\headheight}{14pt}
\fancyhead[LE]{\bfseries\leftmark} 
\fancyhead[RO]{\bfseries\rightmark} 
\fancyfoot[RO]{}
\fancyfoot[CO]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[LO]{\TheID}
\fancyfoot[LE]{}
\fancyfoot[CE]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[RE]{\TheID}
\hypersetup{citebordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,linkbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,urlbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,bookmarksnumbered=true}
\fancypagestyle{plain}{\fancyhead{}\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}}

\date{}
\usepackage{authblk}

\providecommand{\keywords}[1]
{
\footnotesize
  \textbf{\textit{Index terms---}} #1
}

\usepackage{graphicx,xcolor}
\definecolor{GJBlue}{HTML}{273B81}
\definecolor{GJLightBlue}{HTML}{0A9DD9}
\definecolor{GJMediumGrey}{HTML}{6D6E70}
\definecolor{GJLightGrey}{HTML}{929497} 

\renewenvironment{abstract}{%
   \setlength{\parindent}{0pt}\raggedright
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
   \textcolor{GJBlue}{\large\bfseries\abstractname\space}
}{%   
   \vskip8pt
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
}

\usepackage[absolute,overlay]{textpos}

\makeatother 
      \usepackage{lineno}
      \linenumbers
      
\begin{document}

             \author[1]{Leite, Marli  Quadros}

             \affil[1]{  University of São Paulo}

\renewcommand\Authands{ and }

\date{\small \em Received: 14 December 2018 Accepted: 4 January 2019 Published: 15 January 2019}

\maketitle


\begin{abstract}
        


Our goal in this article is to analyze the Postillas de grammmaticageralapplicada á lingua portugueza pela analyse dos classicos, ouguia para a construcçãoportugueza (Apostilles of General Grammar as Applied to the Portuguese Language Through the Analysis of the Classics, or, a Guide to Portuguese Construction) (1868 [1862]), by Francisco Sotero dos Reis (1800-1871), in order to investigate to what extent the author applies the foundations of the general theory to the exploration and interpretation of excerpts syntax from literary texts of the Portuguese language collected for analysis. We will be working with theory, methods and techniques from the História das IdeiasLinguisticas (History of Linguistic Ideas) (Auroux 2006, 2009; Colombat, Fournier, Puech 2017; Leite 2018), which leads us to treat the grammatical fact selected for analysis as an effect, and as a cause the theory that served the interpretation given by the grammarian to that fact.

\end{abstract}


\keywords{philosophical grammar, brazilian philosophical grammar, portuguese language}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1cm,1cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\LARGE Global Journals \LaTeX\ JournalKaleidoscope\texttrademark}
\end{textblock*}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1.4cm,1.5cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\footnotesize \\ Artificial Intelligence formulated this projection for compatibility purposes from the original article published at Global Journals. However, this technology is currently in beta. \emph{Therefore, kindly ignore odd layouts, missed formulae, text, tables, or figures.}}
\end{textblock*}


\let\tabcellsep& 	 	 		 
\section[{I. Introduction}]{I. Introduction}\par
he advent of philosophical grammar in the Luso-Brazilian world came more than one hundred years after the 1660 publication of the Grammairegénérale et raisonée de Port Royal (GGR).  {\ref 1} Portugal, although some grammarians have announced their affinity since the early XVIIIth century with this French grammatical theory -Argote (1721 e 1725) and Lobato (1770) for example -there was at this time no effective theorizing or application of rationalist theory taking place in their works. The theoretical or practical development of rational and philosophical ideas began to emerge later, in the last quarter of the century. First there was Bacelar (1783), who although a rationalist created his own model of grammar with a more logical and physical basis; then there was Sousa (1804), who conceptualized grammar by means of a "metaphor", an "art of painting" thoughts with words, paraphrasing Beauzée (1757, p. 841b), whom he follows on many points, especially in relation to the theory of verb tenses  {\ref 2} , though he does not develop it completely or theoretically; and Silva (1806), who, although he cites the Grammaire Générale et Raisonée, and authors such as Condillac and Du Marsais, does not dedicate himself to theoretical commentary on his grammatical options, though he applies certain aspects of the general theory. Next comes Couto e Melo (1818), whose retrospective horizons (Auroux 2006) is found in a number of French authors on philosophical grammar as well as in the encyclopedists Du Marsais and Beauzée, and who, in fact, applies the general theory in his work, carrying on a theoretical debate on his theses to some extent. And finally there is Barbosa (1822), the bestknown and most studied Portuguese representative of this theoretical current, who benefited from the assumptions of both the GGR and the Encyclopedists. This is the author who debates the rational theory at length, reinterpreting it and, based on this, creating what is to an extent his own version of the theory, used to describe the Portuguese language (Leite 2018, p. 23-24).  {\ref 3} In Brazil, of course, the emergence of philosophical grammar came somewhat later, perhaps due to the distance between colony and metropolis and the cultural center of Europe-at that time, France. This last author consolidated his position as an influence on many philosophical grammarians, both Portuguese and Brazilian, including the grammarian whose work will be examined here.\par
Even so, Antônio da Costa Duarte,  {\ref 4} in 1829, brings out his Compendio da grammatica da lingua portugueza, and then eleven years later, in 1840, publishes a second edition with the title Compendio da grammaticaphilosophica da lingua portugueza, clearing the way for the production of works authored in Brazil with ties to the philosophical grammarians,  {\ref 5} although not very many.  {\ref 6} What we do know is that it is the philosophical grammar of Duarte that attracts Brazilian followers, or at least which disseminates the philosophical model in the country, having gone through six editions, more than any other such work, and having been distributed outside the state of Maranhão (Cavaliere 2010, Leite 2018a and 2018b).  {\ref 7} After this work came the Grammatica portugueza accomodadaaos principiosgeraes da palavra, seguidos de immediadaaplicaçãopratica, of Francisco Sotero dos Reis (1866), which went through three editions, though only one during the life of the author (Leite 2019, coming soon)  {\ref 8} Though heavily criticized, philosophical grammar played an important role in a broader theoretical debate on concepts of language, idiom, grammar and related topics, such as discourse, propositions, substantive verbs, speech acts, and also reached beyond the borders of Maranhão.\par
determination, predicates and others, which were created or reinvented in grammatical terms based on this perspective. The theoretical discussion that emerged from these works clearly conferred a notable conceptual and terminological variety to this debate, stemming from general grammar and especially from the GGR (Arnauld and Lancelot, 1660); the Enlightenment-era Grammairegénéraleou exposition raisonnée des élémentsnécessaires du langage (Beauzée 1767); Principes de grammaire (Du Marsais 1669); Course d'études (Condillac 1775); and the entries of l'Encyclopédie (Diderot and D'Alembert 1751-1772), especially the works of Du Marsais (1754) and Beauzée (1765).\par
In this article we seek to demonstrate the theoretical foundations of which Francisco Sotero dos Reis relies on for the elaboration of his work Postillas de grammaticageralapplicada á lingua portugueza pela analyse dos classicos, ouguia para a construcçãoportugueza; our purpose in so doing is to investigate to what extent the expression "general grammar" leads to the application of principles of a general theory to the investigation of syntax, through the analysis of passages from literary texts in Portuguese. The intention is to seek, in order to interpret its concepts, the proximity of this work to, on the one hand, the French texts, -and especially with entries on grammatical topics in the Encyclopédie-as well as to a certain extent with the Grammatica Philosophica (1822) of Jeronymo Soares Barbosa (1800-1871).\par
We work here with theories, methods and techniques arising from the História das Ideias Linguisticas (Auroux 2006, 2009; Colombat; Fournier; Puech, 2017; Leite 2018), which lead us to identify a cause-and-effect relationship between the interpreted linguistic fact, here taken as effect, and its cause, understood as the theoretical interpretation of the fact given by the grammarian to describe it, creating a new element. This procedure demonstrates how in the author's work there are continuities and discontinuities of the linguistic theories available to perform his work. In this case these theories are: (i) the traditional theory, that is, the classical Greco-Roman theory, natural basis for all linguistic work, though from time to time it is updated and reinterpreted; and (ii) the general theory, especially in the version of French encyclopedists, elaborated by the authors of the entries on grammar of L'Encyclopédieoudictionnaire raisonné des sciences, arts et métiers.  {\ref 10} We believe as well that with respect to the grammar of the Portuguese language, the incorporation of a general theory (philosophical and rationalist) created an opportunity to more deeply explore concepts relating to syntax. The work we analyze here, for example, is entirely dedicated to the study of syntax, as we shall see. In order to attain our objective, we will develop the following topics in the course of this article: a presentation of the work under study, by reviewing the chronology of its publication, as well as by discussing its characteristics and organization, in items 1 and 2. In item 3 we analyze the functionality of the general theory in the syntactic theory of the author, and finally, in item 4, we examine the syntactic concepts adopted by Sotero dos Reis as they relate to those of the general theory.\par
II. The Postillas de Grammaticageral: 
\section[{Essential Characteristics}]{Essential Characteristics}\par
Francisco Sotero dos Reis was a journalist, legislator and professor of Latin and literature at the Instituto de Humanidades de São Luiz.  {\ref 11} Starting in 1861, when the Institute of Humanities was created, its founder and director, Pedro Nunes Leal, began requesting that the professor dedicate himself to producing educational materials for courses in Latin and Portuguese. Sotero dos Reis complied with the request and began passing along to the director the manuscripts he produced for his courses. Thus was born the grammarian Francisco Sotero dos Reis. These manuscripts, as attested by Leal (1873, p. 160), gave rise to the work Postillas de grammaticageral, applicada á lingua portugueza pela analyze dos classicos, ouguia para a construcçãoportugueza,  {\ref 12} There remains a certain amount of confusion over the history of the publication of the Postillas for although Leal stated that the first edition was brought out in 1862, and in the general critical literature this date is accepted, we have gained access to a complete first edition whose title page bears the date 1863. which was then published by the printer Bellarmino de Mattos, known at the time as the "Didot of Maranhão" (p. 160-161).  {\ref 13} In the description detailing the work in the catalogue, however, the following information appears between brackets: "[San Luiz], [1862]". Perhaps the 1863 edition was a reprint of the first edition of 1862, and critical historiography has yet to learn of any 1863 edition. We append a copy of the title page in question here.\par
A careful reading of the introduction presented in the 1863 edition permits us to conclude this edition was a reprint of the first edition. Note what the author says here.\par
(1) It has its beginnings in certain grammatical postillas (course handouts) that we dictated to our students and which at the request of a friend (*) who took it upon himself to print them, we developed them as needed to ready them for printing, convinced that in doing so, we were performing a service for Brazilian youth. It was printed at the same time as we were composing it and so it is quite natural that there be errors and lacunae, for which we beg the forgiveness of the benevolent reader.\par
(*)To Mister Pedro Nunes Leal this book is most deservedly dedicated, for were it not for his request it would have never been written. (Sotero dos Reis 1862, p. V.Emphasisours) Teve origem n'umas postillasgrammaticaes que dictavamos aos nossos alumnos, e á que, por pedido de um amigo (*) que se encarregou da impressão, démos o preciso desenvolvimento para ser impresso, persuadidos de que com isso faziamos tal qual serviço á mocidade brazileira. Foi impresso á medida que ia sendo por nós composto; por isso é muito natural que tenha defeitos e lacunas, para os quais pedimos venia ao leitor benevolo.\par
(*) O Sr. Pedro Nunes Leal a quem por justo motivo dedicamos este livro, pois se não fossem as suas solicitações, não o teriamos composto. (Sotero dos Reis 1862, p. V) (Grifamos)\par
The edition of 1862 must certainly have been printed in the form of worksheets, printed at the same time in which they were being created, and to which students would have had accessed as each one was printed. This explains why this edition does not exist in any library. In that case, we conclude that the chronology of the work is as follows: in 1862, a first edition printed in chapters; in 1863, a reprint of the first edition printed in a single volume; in 1868, a second edition; and in 1870, a third edition, both revised by the author.  {\ref 14} In the 1863 edition there is a part that does not exist in the others, entitled "Juísocritico", signed by TrajanoGalvão de Carvalho (1830-1864), writer (poet) from Maranhão, Bachelor's Degree in Social and Legal Sciences (Blake 1902, p. 318), patron of the Academy of Letters of Maranhão. The first statement of this text confirms that the circulation of the1862 editions was limited because as the author says, "The work now made public with this printing is, if not entirely exceptional, then has very few predecessors in the Brazilian press (?)". This statement attests to the chronology that we have just presented.  {\ref 15} Other information set forth in the introduction are important to the understanding of the Postillas. The author states for example that the work is not a grammar properly speaking because it covers only a part of that field, namely "construcção" (construction) -that is, in the author's interpretation, syntax. He writes:\par
(2) The work we present here is not a grammar, as it covers only part of this topic with respect to general principles governing all languages; it is rather a treatise on Portuguese construction, the first two parts of which serve as a preliminary to the third, or rather, a kind of anatomy of language, confined to this sole objective, and not so complete as we would have liked, but only as far as this small, slim volume allowed. (Sotero dos Reis 1863, p. V.Emphasisours.)\par
O trabalho que publicamos, não é uma grammatica, pois apenas abrange uma parte della com applicação aos principiosgeraes, reguladores de todas as linguas; mas um tratado da construcçãoportugueza, no qual as duas primeiras partes servem de preliminar á terceira, ou antes uma especie de anatomia da lingua, circumscripta a esse único objeto, não tão completa, como desejáramos fosse, mas só quanto nos comportou este pequeno e acanhado volume. (Sotero dos Reis 1863, p. V. 
\section[{Grifamos.)}]{Grifamos.)}\par
Sotero dos Reis does not consider his Postillas to be a grammar because it does not pause to examine the minutiae of grammatical categories. Along with this caveat on the character of the work, the grammarian also makes clear in a note that the target audience for the work comprises those already possessing a foundation in metalinguistic knowledge. Here is the note:\par
(3) Note 1. For the formation of the singular and plural of substantive nouns and adjectives as well as the inflection of verbs, consult conventional grammars, since our purpose is not to compose a grammar but merely to assist in the analysis of grammatical propositions and periods for beginners who already have the precise knowledge of the parts of the speech. (Sotero dos Reis 1868, p. 13-14. Emphasisours.) Nota -1.ª Para formação do singular e plural dos nomes substantivos e adjectivos, bem como para as inflexões dos verbos, recorra-se ásgrammaticasordinarias, visto como nosso fim não é compôr uma grammatica, mas auxiliar unicamente, na analyse das proposições e periodosgrammaticaes, aos principiantes que já tiverem o preciso conhecimento das partes da oração. (Sotero dos Reis 1868, p. 13-14. Grifamos.)\par
The introduction to the Postillasis indispensable reading for the analysis and interpretation of the author's ideas, with respect to this work and also to his Grammaticaportugueza (1868), the second grammatical work of Sotero, given that he does not cite his sources in the body of the work or pause to engage in theoretical explanations. An overview of this introduction allows the analyst of both works to learn and understand the author's objectives and his foundations, based on explicit references to French texts: the Grammaire Générale et Raisonnée de Port-Royal (1660), the work of Arnauld (1612-1694) and Lancelot (1615-1695) and one of the texts of Du Marsais (1675-1756), perhaps Les véritablesprincipes de la grammaireou nouvelle grammaireraisonnée pour apprendre la langue latine(1729)and perhaps also -this time in reference to a Portuguese grammarian -the Grammatica philosophica da lingua portugueza (1822) of Jeronymo Soares Barbosa (1717-1816), an author with broad influence in Portugal and Brazil as a philosophical grammarian.\par
On the didactic framework of the work let us recall Leal (1873, p. 160) when he explains that the course in Portuguese was divided into three "classes": one less advanced, for younger students, and two for advanced students with a reasonable level of metalinguistic knowledge, to whom the Postillas were addressed. To the less advanced students the grammarian addressed the Grammaticaportugueza (1866), four years after his first publication. Francisco Sotero dos Reis was (originally) a teacher of Latin and not of Portuguese, for which reason he is careful to compare the two languages and maintain a distinction between them, stressing idiomatic expressions peculiar to Portuguese (idiomatism). During his classes his students took down notes of his explanations and it was these notes that formed the basis of the Postillas.\par
According to Sotero dos Reis, the Postillas deal mainly with the syntax of the Portuguese language, because as he believed the subject had not yet been covered by other grammarians; as the grammarian's biographer explains:\par
(4) What remained to be done for this course was a grammar, covering mainly syntax as it touches on analysis and construction. Francisco Sotero was lecturing on Latin letters at this secondary school and had a habit of adding explanations of Latin grammatical rules the ways in which Portuguese diverged from Latin. His disciples took notes and in this way the Postillas took shape. (Leal 1873, p. 160)   Faltava para esse curso uma grammatica, principalmente na parte da syntaxe, no que respeitava analyse e construcção. Francisco Sotero leccionava latinidade nesse collegio e tinha por uso junctar á explicação das regras da grammatica latina aquillo em que as da portugueza divergiam d'aquella. Seus discipulos tomavam notas e formavam assim umas como postillas (sic). (Leal 1873, p. 160)   To expound further on the subject, however, Sotero dos Reis (1868, p. 5-23) reviews all the grammatical categories ("parts of the speech" in the author's terminology), which are announced in the introduction using the expression "anatomy of language" as cited in the excerpt (2). The description of these categories however is succinct and serves merely as an introduction to the work on syntax. In the thirteen pages of the first part the grammarian presents the parts of the speech while in the fifteen pages of the second he deals with the concept of the period and briefly presents a typology of subordinate clauses. The commentaries on the characteristics of grammatical categories and their functions appear (in addition to what is found in the first part) directly after the examples or else interspersed among the models of analysis presented, which the author uses to illustrate his lessons. Because the purpose of the grammarian is to explore the syntax of classical texts of the Portuguese language, as well as a description of the parts of the speech based on the proposition, the grammarian spends most of his time on the analysis of literary excerpts, from which examines linguistic features, adding commentary on both semantics -the effects on meaning of syntactic structures -and the style of each text (periods and propositions).\par
The analysis of the corpus of Portuguese literature in the XVth, XVIth, XVIIth and XVIIIth Centuries is carried out by applying traditional theory combined with certain concepts of the general theory, as we will demonstrate in the course of this study. The following are the principal authorswhosetextsserved as a basis for theanalysesofSotero dos Reis: Jacinto Freire (1597-1657), Frei Luiz de Sousa (1555-1632), Father Antonio Vieira (1608-1697), João de Barros (1496-1570), Duarte Nunes de Leão (ca. 1530-1608), Garcia de Resende (1470-1536), Luis Vaz de Camões (1524-1580), Francisco de Morais Cabral (ca. 1500-1572), and Francisco Sá de Miranda (1481-1558).\par
In the second edition of the Postillas the author added a supplement to the fifth section of the work in order to work with earlier (medieval) authors \hyperref[b39]{16} whose texts had not within reach at the time of publication of the first edition. Among these authors are the following: Fernão Lopes (1380-1390), Gomes, Eannes de Zurara (1410-1474), Rui de Pina (1440-1522), Duarte Galvão  (1446-1517), Duarte Galvão (1446-1517), and Damião de Góis (1502-1574). \hyperref[b40]{17} There are very few texts by Brazilian authors. Three passages from the works of the Marquis of Maricá are cited and analyzed as well as the poem Marília de Dirceu by Tomás Antonio Gonzaga (the latter considered a Luso-Brazilian author, half-Portuguese, half-Brazilian). Literary excerpts -often quite extensive -are used to validate grammatical explanation although in some cases they also serve as counterexamples. The author's technique in relation to the exploration of the literary passages cited as motivation for linguistic explanation, or as an illustration of the theory exposed, is arbitrary. That is, the texts are presented both before and after the metalinguistic explanation in which they are interspersed.\par
In the following item we will comment on how the different parts of the Postillas unfold. 
\section[{III. Organization of the Work}]{III. Organization of the Work}\par
This is a work which by reason of its purpose does not follow the typical model of philosophical grammar, which is generally organized into chapters dealing with spelling, pronunciation, etymology, and syntax, though it is connected to the theory on which this model is based because, as stated above, it is a work whose scope is confined to syntax. The table of contents and index immediately reveal that this is a practical work based on a mixture of two theories: the traditional and the general. In fact, an accurate reading of the content on the subject of grammar clearly reveals that traditional Greco-Roman theory occupies more space than does the general theory. This is demonstrated by the use of the terms "construction" and "proposition" and by the tripartite structure that accompanies them (subject, verb and attribute) as well as the meta-term determiner to describe adjectives in contradistinction to the traditional definition of these as qualifiers. Most terms however are not specific to the general theory.\par
The Postillas are divided into five parts and open with a presentation of the figure of the proposition. Below, in order to provide an overview of the book, we present this summary table of its organization, to be read horizontally left to right.  PART TWO (p. 25-37)\par
The proposition: direct and inverse order. Complements. Invariant parts of speech: prepositions, adverbs and interjections. Variable parts of speech: adjectives (determinative and qualitative). \hyperref[b41]{18} The period. Propositions(absolute, subordinate, [circumstantial,  complementary]). Models of a series of periods forming a continuous discourse. Declension of personal pronouns. Models of analysis (subject, verb and attribute.\par
PART THREE (p. 37-87) PART FOUR (p. 87-136)\par
Section I Particular characteristics of the Portuguese language with respect to construction and idiomatism. 
\section[{Inversion of the terms of the proposition}]{Inversion of the terms of the proposition}\par
-of the participle; -of the personal infinitive; -of the compound subject;\par
-of the complex subject; -of the interrogative and exclamatory subject.\par
Section II-Idiomatism and grammatical difficulties.\par
-Inversion of the terms of the proposition;\par
-Use of the unipersonal verb haver; -Use of the indefinite pronoun SE as distinct from the reflexive pronoun SE; -Use of the verb SER in place of the verb ESTAR;\par
-special use of the adjective; -Use of the adjunct conjunctive in its neuter and composed form, O QUE. The first part presents the concepts and classifications of the grammatical categories and their functions, beginning with an introduction of the concepts of proposition, subject, attribute, verb and complement. This beginning signals the assumption of a rationalist position on the part of the author, in terms of the terminology used and in terms of its concepts. In this chapter however, the author harmoniously combines rationalist concepts and principles with traditional concepts and syntactic analysis. 
\section[{Figures of construction -}]{Figures of construction -}\par
In the second part the author begins an analysis properly speaking of syntax, introducing the principal concepts with which he will be working -the period and the proposition, the basis of which he will approach other syntactic functions. His theorizing on the period, though coinciding on some points with that of the encyclopedists Du Marsais and Beauzée, is not an application of these thinkers but rather a grafting of certain terms and concepts of theirs onto a traditional fabric that predominates. It is worth noting that there is no absolute agreement on certain points of this theory, not even on the part of these two philosophers and grammarians, who are authors as well of the general theory. The basis of the period concept, which Sotero dos Reis (1868, p. 26) also terms frase total (the total phrase), which plays no part in the terminology of the general theory, is the meaning, defined as "a perfect and absolute meaning". This is not far from what both French scholars say on the subject of the period, but the division of the period by Sotero dos Reis into simple and compound is not consistent with the teachings of the two thinkers.\par
The concept of the period in Du Marsais (1754, vol. IV, p. 82b) begins in the context of a presentation and discussion of absolute, or complete, and relative, or partial propositions, in that the latter are chained together to create a meaningful whole. In introducing the term that will designate this whole, the encyclopedist invokes the rhetoricians, saying, "the joining of various related propositions by means of conjunctions or other relational terms is known as a period among the rhetoricians. It will not be pointless to state here what the grammarian must already know." The quotation shows a certain restriction by the French author on the use of the term "period" as imported from domain external to grammar, the rhetoric, but in what serves as a kind of concession Du Marsais admits that the linguistic fact of the conjoining of propositions dedicated to a unit of meaning is also of grammatical interest and so incorporates this term into his own theory.\par
For both Marsais (1754, vol. IV, p. 82b) and Beauzée (1767, Book III, p. 41) the period is defined as a meaningful whole composed of propositions linked by conjunctions. Du Marsais (ibid) states that "the period is a conjunction of propositions tied together by conjunctions and that taken together they form a finite whole: this finite meaning is also termed a complete meaning." Beauzée takes a position on this topic that agrees with that of Du Marsais, \hyperref[b42]{19} Beauzée (1767, p. 40), again on the study of the period, complains of the reference by Du Marsais to the rhetoricians, although he goes a little further in the definition he formulates for the period. He says that the period is a whole comprising "a complete and finite meaning made up of propositions that play no part in one another but which are linked in such a way that some necessarily presuppose the others in the fullness of the total meaning." As to the classification of periods, Beauzée does not merely take into account the number of propositions of which they are composed, but also, in an interpretation somewhat more complex, considers that they are made up of members, which are in turn composed of propositions. To this end the French grammarian states that a member may, for example, have three "submembers" because it comprises three propositions (Id. p.42). 
\section[{20}]{20}\par
The reference here to this debate makes sense because Sotero dos Reis (1868, p. 26) not only refers to the rhetoricians and the "rhetorical period" but also deals with a classification of periods in which he examines both the grammatical period and the rhetorical period, the latter being more complex than the former. In the former case, he says, each verb corresponds to a proposition while in the latter this is not the case since every period has another order because it is more concerned with the "harmony of pauses and contrasts" and less concerned, as we may infer, with grammar. For this reason, the Brazilian grammarian says, in the case of the rhetorical period one cannot speak of propositions but rather of members, made up of more than one grammatical proposition. On these grounds he presents a theory in which relative and incidental (explanatory and restrictive) and infinitive, propositions, together with those on which they depend, constitute for according to him, it would be "useless to the grammarian to speak of the period to the rhetoricians" but he does not clarify the reasons for this position. It may be possible to admit that while the rhetoricians deal with finding means to impart greater persuasive force to the statement, the rationalist grammarian studies language in search of the logic used by the speaker to express his thought and in so doing to create meaning through articulated speech. The difference between these two types of period, then, would have to do with the complexity of the analysis that the rhetorical period might require but not with the theory used to carry it out. members that make up the rhetorical period. On the other, the grammatical period, our author says, is composed of clauses classified as absolute or subordinate.\par
The term "member" as applied to the rhetorical period in this context is not the same concept used by Beauzée (1767, Book III, p. 42) in regard to the proposition, for the encyclopedist does not view the period in the same way that the rhetoricians and many grammarians do, as for example Sotero dos Reis. For this encyclopedist a collection of united propositions which, however, maintain their own syntactic and semantic unity, in which one proposition does not depend on another and none are linked by conjunctions, does not constitute a period, and the propositions are termed "separate" (propositions detachées). In this case, there may be only one or perhaps a collection of many separate propositions, termed "simple", "composite", "noncomplex", or "complex" as the case may be. The encyclopedist likewise views the integration of a principal proposition with an incident one as a case of "separate" propositions because, as he explains, the incident is an integral part of the principal which stems from a purely semantic criterion, given that the conjunctive element is "relative" to an antecedent term from another clause. In essence, as we can see, this occurs because it is the logicosemantic criterion that controls interpretation, more so than the syntactic clarity displayed by the materiality of the statement. The term "period" is therefore reserved for a complex of propositions "united by conjunctions" and forming a meaningful whole.\par
The definition as expressed by the French author is the following:\par
(5) The period then is the expression of a complete and finite meaning by means of numerous propositions that are not integral parts of one another but which are so connected to one another that some necessarily presuppose the others in the fullness of meaning. (Beauzée 1767, Book III, p. 42) Um período é, então, a expressão de um sentido completo e finito, por meio de muitas proposições que não são partes integrantes umas das outras, mas que são tão conectadas umas às outras que umas supõem necessariamente as outras para a plenitude do sentido total.Beauzée (1767, Livro III, p. 42) Perhaps it is this conjunction of propositions we understand today in relation to the traditional rules of syntactic analysis for Brazilian Portuguese, which in grammatical nomenclature is termed a "period composed of coordinated clauses".\par
The fourth part results from the author's comparative study of the rules of Latin and Portuguese, as referred to above, citing Leal (1873). From this stem the idiomatic expressions (idiomatisms), presented simultaneously as characteristics of and a source of difficulties for the grammatical analysis of Portuguese.\par
Regarding this part of the work we should at least comment on the issue of the impersonal usage of the verb haver, termed unipessoal (unipersonal) by the author. The interpretation of the grammarian in this case is reached by means of a principle of the general theory according to which there exists no verb without its nominative component, for which reason Sotero dos Reis attributes an implied subject and an expressed complement to the unipersonal verb. Thus, he says: (6) The unipersonal verb haver, whose meaning is the same as that of existir, is normally used with an implied grammatical subject, "class, genus, species, portion, quantity, number, time, space", along with an express complement to this subject, preceded by a preposition "de" which is also implied. ( The issue of the impersonal verb haver has always been difficult for the grammarians to interpret. Barbosa (1822, pp. 176 and 383), also suggests that there is an elliptical subject represented by the pronoun alguns ("there are men", or rather "there are some men") or that there is in this case a syllepsis of number, with a verb in the singular and the subject in the plural. Duarte (1877, p. 111), for his part, after reviewing some of the possibilities for the analysis of the case and after a final citation of Lobato (1770) sums up and concludes the discussion in an unusual matter, as we see in the excerpt below.\par
(7) Lobato says that in such expressions there occurs ellipsis, such as in the sentence hámuitoshomens que amão as ciências (there are many men who love the sciences). In view of so many opinions, each one chooses that which pleases him most (Duarte,1877 The fifth part is dedicated to the structure of the grammatical period through an analysis of the positioning of both propositions and complements. In this chapter the author analyzes a number of passages and texts in both poetry and prose in order, on one hand, to show how the period is organized and, on the other, to verify how this structural order has changed over time, exploring texts from different eras. The excerpts to be analyzed are presented by the author all at once, before analysis begins: there are twenty-five texts in the first section, to be used for the analysis of complements, and twenty-six in the second part, for the analysis of the placement of propositions. For the exploration of the examples in the second section the grammarian formulates rules for the insertion of absolute, circumstantial and complementary propositions, based on which he elaborates his commentaries. On absolute propositions, for example, he says (8) Absolute propositions joined together by conjunctions of the first kind, or by the identity of the subject, or by the natural order, generation and succession of ideas, should be inserted in the period, which includes more than one, either successively, as when subordinate propositions do not occur among them, or on the contrary, separately, each with its respective dependencies. (Sotero dos Reis 1868, p. 179) 
\section[{As}]{As}\par
proposições absolutas approximadas por conjuncções de primeira classe, ou pela identidade de sujeito, ou pela ordem, geração e successão natural das idéas, devem ser collocadas no periodo, que comprehende mais de uma, ou successivamente, quando entre ellas se não mettem de permeio proposições subordinadas, ou, no caso contrario, separadamente, cada uma com as suas respectivas dependencias. (Sotero dos Reis 1868, p. 179)\par
The syntactic analyses of the grammarian are superficial in that they provide only a classification of propositions together with vague comments on the "poetic effect" that this order of elements and the figures of construction contribute to the text. As an example of this, we transcribe part of an analysis of a strophe from the poem The Lusiads by Camões, from the episode of Ines de Castro: (9) "Estavas, linda Ignez, posta em socego, De teus annos colhendo o doce fruto, N'aquelle engano da alma, ledo e cego, Que a fortuna não deixa durar muito; Nos saúdosos campos do Mondego, De teus formosos olhos nunca enxuto, Aos montes ensinando e áshervinhas O nome, que no peito escripto tinhas." (Camões) \hyperref[b43]{21} 21 "He placed thee,fair Ignèz! Insoft retreat, Cullingthefirst-fruits of thy sweet young years, in thatdelicious Dream, that dear Deceit, whose long endurance Fortune hates and fears: Hardby Mondego's yearned-for meads thyseat, wherelinger, flowing still, those lovely tears, until each hill-born tree and shrub confest, the name of Him deep writ within thy breast." (Burton 1880, p. 127. The Lusiads, canto III, 120)\par
The first passage by Camões is a period composed by three grammatical propositions, one absolute and two subordinates, all of them natural and inserted in succession.\par
[In] the absolute proposition Estavaslinda Inez (...) the noun is the principal element; the subject tu of which lindaIgnez is the complement, remains implied, and the complement is in inverse order.\par
Of the two subordinate propositions, the first, Que a fortunanãodeixadurarmuito, is a circumstantial restrictive accident, linked to the principal proposition by the conjunctive adjective que; the second, que no peitoescriptotinhas, is another circumstantial restrictive accident, also linked to the principal by the conjunctive adjective que. Both relate to the attribute of the proposition, which they modify, and are expressed in normal word order.\par
In this period an admirable poetic effect is produced, through the harmonious composition of the propositions and the complements, throughthe judicious choice of the epithets lindo and doce andcego and saudosa and formosos, which serve perfectly to the coloring of the passage, both through the creation of images through the appropriate use of tropes, all of them powerfully expressed, and the delicacy and tenderness of the conceit, expressed in melodious verses, and in sum through the perfect contrast of its ideas, which convey this and the three stanzas that follow, along with all the others of the episode. From all the artifice used by the poet there results an exquisite, extremely beautiful and deeply moving portrait that touches our spirit deeply. (Sotero dos Reis 1868, pp. 174 and 200) A primeira passagem de Camões é um periodo composto de tres proposições grammaticais, uma absoluta, e duas subordinadas, todas natural e sucessivamente collocadas.\par
A proposição absoluta, Estavas linda Inez (...) o nome, é a principal; tem occulto o sujeito, tu, de que é complemento, linda Ignez; e está na ordem inversa.\par
Neste periodo é admiravel o effeitopoetico produzido, seja pela harmoniosa collocação das proposições e dos complementos, seja pela ajustada escolha dos epithetos, linda, doce, ledo, cego, saúdosos, formosos, que servem optimamente ao colorido, formando imagens, seja pelo apropriado emprego dos tropos, que todos teem virtude, seja pelo delicado e terno do conceito, expresso em versos maviosissimos, seja emfim pelo perfeito contraste de idéas, que apresentão esta e as tres seguintes estancias com todas as mais do episodio. De todo esse artificio empregado pelo poeta resulta um primoroso, bellissimo e pathetico quadro, que nos impressiona profundamente o espirito. (Sotero dos Reis 1868, p. 174 e 200)\par
As we can see the analyses of the Brazilian grammarian and those the French authors might have produced of the same "period" would not have been the same; there would not even have been any convergence between the two encyclopedists taken separately. If  Reis with Beauzée's model, for example, in the first place the term "subordinate propositions" would not be used and in the second the two propositions would be considered "separated" and not mutually dependent, for it would be held that the elements of the two propositions are relative to preceding terms with which they maintain a unity of meaning, complete and independent, and thus are separate.\par
In other analyses, observance of the rules as presented leads the grammarian to evaluate the texts as he does in this case, in which he takes a positive view, though he may evaluate others negatively if he believes that their complements are not well-composed and for that reason do not adhere to "good grammatical logic". As for the texts to be analysed, Sotero dos Reis will go so far as to rewrite those he considers defective. An example of this approach may be seen in the following passage in which the grammarian analyzes a strophe from the poem Marilia de Dirceu by Tomás Antônio Gonzaga: (10)  This passage from Gonzaga is a period comprising eight grammatical propositions, six of them absolute (including an ellipsis) and two subordinates, all of which natural and successively set forthand rendered in correct order. (...)\par
Of the two subordinate propositions, the first, Que viva de guardaralheiogado, is a restrictive circumstantial incident that modifies the attribute of the principal and is connected to it by the conjunctive adjective que; while the second, de que me visto is an incident and restrictive circumstantial modifying the sixth absolute proposition and is also connected to it by the conjunctive adjective que.\par
This period is defective in its structure because the absolute proposition "Da-me vinho, legumes, fruta, azeite" is not placed beside the principal proposition but rather beside the third absolute, Tenho proprio casal, without however being dependent on it, as the correct expression of thought demands, and it remains there as though grafted, like an absolute incident that should be positioned between parentheses.\par
Here is what good grammatical logic demands:\par
Eu Marilia, não sou algum vaqueiro, que viva de guardar alheio gado, de tosco trato , de expressões grosseiro, dos frios gelos e dos sóes queimado; tenho proprio casal, no qual, ou onde assisto, e que me dá vinho, legumes fruta, azeite; das brancas ovelhinas tiro o leite, o mais as finas lãas, de que me visto. (Sotero dos Reis 1868, p. 197) A passagem de Gonzaga é um periodo composto de oito proposições grammaticaes, seis absolutas inclusive uma elliptica incidente, e duas subordinadas, as quaes todas se achão natural e successivamentecollocadas, e postas na ordem directa. (...) (...) Das duas proposições subordinadas, a primeira; Que viva de guardar alheio gado, é uma circumstancial incidente restrictiva, que cahe sobre o attributo da principal, e ligase á ellapelloadjectivoconjunctivo, que; a segunda, de que me visto, é uma circumstancial incidente restrictiva, que cahe sobre o attributo da sexta proposição absoluta, e liga-se também á ella pelo adjectivoconjunctivo, que.\par
Este periodo é defeituoso em sua estructura, por que a proposição absoluta Da-me vinho, legumes, fruta, azeite, não se aproxima á principal, mas á terceira absoluta, Tenho proprio casal, sem que todavia seja uma dependenciadella, como requeria a boa expressão do pensamento, e fica assim sendo um verdadeiro enxerto, ou uma absoluta incidente, que devia ser collocada entre parentehesis.\par
Eis o que exigia a boa logica grammatical.(Sotero dos Reis 1868, p. 197) Above all the operation to which Sotero dos Reis subjects the text changes the style of its composition when he transforms it from poetry to prose, which is not a correct method of analysis because the logic of production and reception of each of these genres is distinct. Furthermore, this operation is wholly unproductive with respect to the understanding of the text because there has been no change in the "construction", that is, in the order of the elements, which theoretically might render the text illegible. The intervention the author carries out on this strophe is strictly grammatical in scope, with the substitution of the conjunction e for no qual, ouonde and then the transformation of an absolute proposition (termed principal) into the subordinate eque me dá, inverting, with the insertion of the relative pronoun que, the transformation of the original enclitic construction into a proclitic one in order to comply with "good grammatical logic".\par
In the following section we will return to these topics in exploring indicators of the proximity of Sotero dos Reis to the general theory.\par
IV. What is there in the Postillas that is "General"?\par
The connection with the general theory in the Postillas is visible in the reference to the logicophilosophical principle of the general theory, that of the relation thought/language and mainly due to the incorporation of its principal logical concept: proposition. It is through the proposition that human beings reveal the logico-cognitive operation through which they construct their representation of things and ideas. This implies a "perceiving or conceiving" of something in reality, or in the spirit, Year 2019\par
Volume XIX Issue X Version I ( G )\par
followed by an "evaluation" of what has been conceived and finally a judgment of what has been perceived and evaluated and an enunciation of it by means of the proposition. The "proposition" encompasses this entire process, within this theoretical context, because it is the proposition that materially represents an abstract content of thought found generally in all languages and is manifest through a tripartite structure composed of a subject, a copula or substantive verb and an attribute.\par
The first part of the Postillas therefore begin with the proposition, based on which the author presents the syntactic functions of which it is composed: the subject, a function performed by the noun (substantive, pronoun, clause); the attribute, performed by "the adjective or an equivalent"; the copula, performed by the verb; and the complement, carried out by a word or phrase that completes the subject or attribute. In this manner the work opens with a lesson on the proposition in which the author presents the syntactic functions which compose it. (11) The proposition, also termed clause, phrase, sentence is the statement of a judgment. Every collection of words that create meaning is a proposition containing the three terms subject, verb and attribute. Example: "God is just", where "God" is the subject, "is" the verb and "just" the attribute. (Sotero dos Reis 1868, p. 5) A proposição, que também se chama oração, phrase, sentença, é o enunciado do juizo. Toda a reunião de palavras, a qual forma sentido, é uma proposição que contem os tres termos, sujeito, verbo, attributo. Exp.: «Deus é justo.» Deus sujeito, é verbo, justo attributo. (Reis  1868, p. 5)   In this brief excerpt Sotero dos Reis makes explicit his commitment to the general theory. We observe that the grammarian, without theorizing, refers to the statement as "juizo" or "judgment" and commits to the development of a syntax based on the concept of the proposition in order to describe its three elements, the subject, the verb, and the attribute. This definition is quite close to the French term construction used by Du Marsais(1754, vol. IV, p. 73a-92b) with respect to the concept of the proposition as "the statement of a judgment", for as the French thinker says: (12) The proposition is a collection of words which, through the joining of the various relations they possess among themselves, express a judgment or some particular consideration of the spirit, which views some object as such. (1754, vol. IV, p. 81a) A proposição é uma reunião de palavras que, pelo concurso de diferentes relações que elas têm entre si, enunciam um julgamento ou qualquer consideração particular do espírito, que vê um objeto como tal. (1754, vol. IV, p. 81a) Du Marsais however does not refer to the term "clause" as a synonym of "proposition" and does not employ the term "sentence". As to the term "phrase", although it is used many times in the entry on "construction" to which we referred, he makes it clear that it cannot be understood as synonymous with "proposition" because the term "phrase" may refer to statements with various structures and incomplete meanings. The French scholar explains the concept of the phrase as follows:\par
(13) It will not be futile to observe that propositions and statements are sometimes called phrases: but phrase is a generic term used for any union of words related to one another, whether forming a finished meaning or a merely incomplete one.\par
(Du Marsais, 1754, p. 81) (Emphasisours) Não será inútil observar que as proposições e os enunciados são algumas vezes chamados frase: mas frase é uma palavra genérica que é usada para qualquer conjunto de palavras relacionadas entre si, tanto se elas fazem um sentido acabado quanto se apenas incompleto. (Du Marsais 1754, p. 81) (Grifamos)\par
For the French grammarian the proposition not only represents a "judgment" but also has a binary structure, fixed and stable, and not a tripartite structure as asserted in the GGR and adopted by Sotero dos Reis. For Du Marsais (Ib.), the proposition comprises a subject and an attribute, with the verb included in the attribute. Beauzée (1757, p. 864), however, reinterpreting the concept of Du Marsais, detaches the verb from the attribute and (re)presents the proposition as a tripartite structure comprising the subject, verb, and attribute, and states: "First, the material of the proposition is the totality of the parts which enter into its composition, and these parts are of two kinds, logical and grammatical." This division is not identical to that found in the GGR because the authors of the latter believe the verb to be the element that establishes the connection of subject to object and that it signifies affirmation. Beauzée contests this, a topic to which we will return later on.\par
Although the work we have examined here is dedicated to the analysis of Portuguese syntax and is a tributary of the general theory, its author does not embrace the bipartite division of this level of analysis into construction and syntax, as does Du Marsais. The term "syntax" does not occur in the Postillas in the sense given to it by Du Marsais; and no other is used to take its place because the author does not define as "syntax" the type of analysis applied to the proposition. \hyperref[b44]{22} The term "construcção" (construction) in turn also goes undefined. However, the context of its use clearly indicates that the author refers both to the order or disposition of the elements of the speech and their mutual relations. This is different from the theory of construction proposed by Du Marsais, who explains:\par
Year 2019 (14) CONSTRUCTION: the arrangement of words in discourse. Construction is flawed when the words in a phrase are not arranged according to the usage of a given language. We say that a construction is Greek or Latin when the words are arranged in an order conforming to the use, according the genius of the Greek language or that of the Latin. (Du Marsais, ArticleCONSTRUCTION, 1754, vol. IV, p. 82, 73a-92b) CONSTRUÇÃO: o arranjo de palavras no discurso. A construção é viciosa quando as palavras de uma frase não são arranjadas segundo o uso de uma língua. Dizemos que uma construção é grega ou latina, quando as palavras são dispostas em uma ordem conforme o uso, de acordo com o gênio da língua grega, ou, com aquele da língua latina. (Du Marsais, Article CONSTRUCTION, 1754, vol. IV, p. 73a-92b)\par
In his first use of the term, the Brazilian grammarian introduces it in the following context (Sotero dos Reis 1868, p. 37): "The inversion of the terms of the proposition is so frequent in the Portuguese language that it is common to find in the works of classical authors more examples of inverse word order than of natural word order (...).". This seems to suggest that this author arrived at the same conclusions as the French author, but this is not confirmed by the development of the Postillas: the Brazilian grammarian broadens the scope of "construction" to the relations and functions of the elements of the proposition as well as to the relations of propositions among themselves, that is, to "the arrangement of words in discourse", to the order, direct and inverse, of words in the sentence, without distinguishing from issues of agreement, definiteness, complementarity, and the positioning of words in the proposition. The beliefs of Du Marsais, however, are different, as we have seen, and are made crystal clear in the following passage: (15) I believe that construction should not be confused with syntax. Construction merely presents a notion of combination and arrangement (...) But that which brings it about, in every language, that words may excite the meaning desired to be provoked in the spirit of those who know the language, is what we call syntax. Syntax then is the part of grammar that furnishes the knowledge of the established signs of a language in order to stimulate meaning in the spirit. These signs, when we understand their purpose, reveal the successive relations that words have among themselves. It is for this reason that when a person who speaks or writes departs from this order by means of transpositions authorized by usage, the spirit of he who listens or reads meanwhile reestablishes order in virtue of the signs through which we speak, the intention of which it [the spirit] recognizes from usage. Du Marsais (1754, Volume IV, 73a) Eu creio que a construção não deva ser confundida com sintaxe. Construção apresenta apenas a ideia de combinação e arranjo. (...) Mas o que faz que, em cada língua, que as palavras excitem o sentido que se quer provocar no espírito daqueles que sabem a língua, é o que chamamos sintaxe. A sintaxe é, portanto, a parte da Gramática que dá o conhecimento dos signos estabelecidos em uma língua para estimular o sentido no espírito. Esses sinais, quando conhecemos seu destino, revelam as relações sucessivas que as palavras têm entre si. É por isso que, quando a pessoa que fala ou escreve se desvia dessa ordem por transposições que o uso autoriza, o espírito de quem ouve ou lê restabelece, no entanto, tudo na ordem em virtude dos signos pelos quais falamos, a qual ele [o espírito] conhece a destinação pelo uso. Du Marsais (1754, volume IV, 73a) Another indicator of the connection between Sotero dos Reis and the general theory is the assumption of the verb ser as a substantive verb responsible for the structuring of the proposition. This is the strongest sign of the theory of the fathers of Port Royal, who argue that all judgment is uttered by means of an affirmation (semantic relation), expressed by a proposition in which the subject is connected to an attribute by the substantive verb, the only one possible to enunciating the essence of reasoning. The grammarian from Maranhão, however, accepts only partially the thesis of the authors of the GGR and that of Beauzée as well (1765, p. 48a). For the authors of the GGR the substantive verb is a copulative element and an element of the affirmation of the attribute in the subject, while for the encyclopedist the verb is "a word that presents to the spirit an indeterminate being designated only by the general idea of existence under a relation with a modification" (Emphasis ours). For Sotero dos Reis, then, the definition of the verb comprises two key terms: affirmation, characteristic of the GGR, and existence, a sign of the theory of Beauzée, as we see in the following excerpt. (16) The verb that affirms the existence of the attribute in the subject is the verb ser (to be), which is known as the substantive verb because it subsists by itself. (Sotero dos Reis 1868, p. 5.Emphasisours) O verbo que affirma a existência do attributo no sujeito, é o verbo Ser, o qual se chama verbo substantivo, porque subsiste por si só. (Reis 1868, p. 5) (Grifamos) This definition of the verb as a term which "affirms the existence of the attribute" suggests that according to the formulation in which the substantive "existence" appears, Sotero dos Reis may have known of Beauzée's criticisms regarding the definition of the verb as an "affirmation", a concept taken directly from the GGR. Soterodos Reis then formulates his own concept by fusing these: the concept taken from the GGR and the concept of the two French scholars. Even so, the definition of Sotero dos Reis does not correspond to what Beauzée says on this topic. Beauzée discusses the modification the verb produces in the mind of the hearer by means of a proposition given that it is present in all of these and says that which is enunciated by means of the verb is the result of our judgments, through a movement of the intellect. 
\section[{Year 2019}]{Year 2019}\par
Volume XIX Issue X Version I ( G )\par
On his divergence with Du Marsais, his predecessor in the composition of items on grammar for the Encyclopédie, the philosopher has this to say: (17) I would add that it is this idea of intellectual existence which the author of the general grammar glimpsed in the common meaning of all verbs, and which is proper to this species alone, when, after noting all the defects of the definitions formulated before his, he settled on the idea of affirmation. He felt that the nature of the verb ought to be made necessary to the proposition; he did not perceive clearly the idea of intellectual existence because he never turned to the nature of inward judgments; he limited himself to the affirmation because he dealt only with the proposition as such. (Beauzée 1765, vol. VII, p. 50. Emphasisours) Acrescento que é essa ideia de existência intelectual, que o autor da gramática geral entreviu no significado comum a todos os verbos, e próprio apenas a essa espécie, quando, depois de ter notado todos os defeitos das definições dadas antes dele, se fixou na ideia de afirmação. Ele sentiu que a natureza do verbo deveria torná-lo necessário para a proposição; não enxergou com clareza a ideia de existência intelectual, porque não voltou à natureza do julgamento interior; ele se limitou à afirmação, porque cuidou apenas da proposição em si. (Beauzée 1765, vol. VII, p. 50) (Grifamos) Beauzée understood that the authors of GGR, and du Marsais as well, in observing merely one accidental characteristic of the verb, lost sight of the essential because they paid more attention to the more superficial aspects of the proposition and not its deeper meaning, the intellectual operation and the action (modification) the proposition performs by means of the statement of its formulator and also of all who come into contact with. This is the sense of the "intellectual existence" that is the essential property of the verb in the view of Beauzée.\par
In the definition formulated by the Brazilian grammarian, as we saw, "affirms existence", the two key terms "(affirmation" for the authors of the GGR \hyperref[b45]{23} It is important that we recover what was said on this topic by Barbosa (1822, p. 193), an author who may belong to a retrospective horizons closer to that of Sotero dos Reis and who may have been the direct and Du Marsais an "existence" for Beauzée) appear as complementary although originally they stem from different contexts. "Affirms existence" continues to indicate the connection between subject and attribute as explained in Note (16). There is nothing in the conception of Sotero dos Reis to indicate, then, that the term "existence" as he employs it has anything to do with "intellectual existence" as it was used by Beauzée. source of the idea of combining the concept of existence and the concept of the verb. The issue is more complex, however, because at the same time as Barbosa embraces the idea that the verb represents existence he denies that it is an affirmation. (18) All of what was said above, is not properly speaking in accord with anything beyond our substantive verb ser, termed "substantive" because this verb alone expresses the existence of a quality or attribute in the subject of the proposition. (Barbosa 1822, pp. 192)   The essence of the verb Ser does not consist in Affirmation, as many Grammarians claim. Its infinitive form, which is the primitive one, affirms nothing.Barbosa (1822, p. 193. Emphasisours) Tudo, o que acima fica dicto, não convem propriamente se não ao nosso verbo substantivo Ser, assim chamado, porque ellesohe quem exprime a existencia de huma qualidade, ou attributo no sujeito da proposição. Barbosa (1822, p. 192) A essencia do verbo Ser não consiste na Affirmação, como muitos Grammaticospertendem. Sua fórma infinitiva, que he a primitiva, nada affirma. Barbosa (1822, p. 193) (Grifos nossos)\par
As we see from the passages transcribed here, the substitution of the term "affirmation" by "existence" does little to change the meaning of what the statement has already said in its origin in the GGR, in that the definition "affirms the attribute of the subject" corresponds to the interpretation that the attribute exists in the subject. We conclude that the ambiguity of the meaning of these terms persists, for in the first case affirmation may be understood in broader terms as an "essential relation" between subject and attribute, and in the second case, and by the same token, "existence" signifies not just presence but essence. The use of the term "existence" is a clear sign that the retrospective horizons of Barbosa is Beauzée but that the Portuguese grammarian either did not find the theory of the French philosopher useful or else did not understand it. \hyperref[b46]{24} "Estar", which is the same as "ser estante", an attributive verb in its Latin origin, is a combination of the substantive verb with the idea of abiding, of an attitude, posture, state Unlike his interpretation of the theory of the GGR as well as that of Du Marsais, according to which ser is the only verb, Sotero dos Reis, considering the characteristics of the Portuguese language, similar as it is to other Latin languages though different from French, conceives of the verb estar as a substantive as well. As we read: (19) "Ser", which is the same as "ser ente", a substantive or self-subsisting verb and a nexus or copula that joins the object to the attribute, as such uniquely expresses affirmation or the existence of the quality in the substance, or idea of existence, combined with that of a vagueness of mood. This is the difference between the two verbs in languages which, like Portuguese, Spanish and Italian, possess both forms. (Reis 1868, p. 71) Ser, o mesmo que ser ente, verbo substantivo, ou subsistente por si só, nexo ou copula que une o attributo ao sujeito, exprime como tal unicamente a affirmação, ou a existência da qualidade na substancia.\par
Estar, o mesmo que ser estante, verbo attributtivo em sua origem latina, já é o verbo substantivo combinado com a idea de estada, attitude, postura, estado, ou a idea de existencia combinada com a de modo vaga.\par
Daqui a differença entre os dois verbos nas linguas que, como o Portuguez, o Hespanhol, e o Italiano, os possuem ambos. (Reis, 1868, p. 71)   We may observe here that the reference to and conceptualization of the verbs ser, a substantive, and estar, an attributive with a substantive function, are not merely theoretical. Sotero dos Reis finds support for his theory  {\ref 25} Another significant characteristic of general grammar is the hypothesis that the statement may on a superficial syntactic level be incomplete, although its semantic completeness is not, because it is recovered at a deeper level (the level of interpretation); that is, the incomplete linguistic form is related to a complete meaning, corresponding to the speaker's reasoning. In this case incompleteness is due to an omission of words or structures which in grammatical analysis is corrected by (mental) transformation of the clauses to which the omitted terms are included. This is the theory of ellipsis, which is also present in the Postillasand for which the author reserves considerable space in the text under study. In the fourth part ellipses are studied as "figures of construction", though the author does not refer to them explicitly as implicit counterparts of the in Portuguese literary texts, for example: In this quotation, the verbs in parentheses are additions by Sotero dos Reis, indicating that the verb ser is used in place of estar by the authors. Thus, the practice of literary language confirms the thesis that in Portuguese the verb estar is also substantive.\par
proposition, in order to demonstrate the logic of the reasoning used in the reconstruction of the proposition, although he may speak of the meaning and intelligence of the texts. He treats them merely as characteristics common to Portuguese-language literary texts. Consider the following conceptual paragraph: (21) Ellipsis, which consists in the suppression of one or more words that are readily understood in light of meaning, is the most frequent of all figures of construction and consequently the figure with which we must most occupy ourselves, since a perfect understanding of these is extremely important to the right understanding of the prose authors and poets. (Sotero dos Reis 1868, p. 87) A Ellipse, que consiste na suppressão de uma ou mais palavras, que facilmente se subentendem pelo sentido, é de todas as figuras de construcção a mais frequente, e por conseguinte a que mais tem de occupar-nos, pois o seu perfeito conhecimento muito importa á boa intelligencia dos prosadores e poetas. (Sotero dos Reis 1868, p. 87)\par
The ellipses present in the texts selected as examples to serve as models for analysis are "unfolded", although without theoretical references to logical method. In reading a verse by Bernadim Ribeiro, for example, the grammarian rewrites the verse, unfolding and reinterpreting by including words which, inasmuch as they are implicitly understood, must be recovered. Here is the example :\par
(22) Triste de mim que será? In this passage the grammatical attribute "feito" is implicit and "triste de mim" is its complement. The elliptical proposition is equivalent to the other, complete, proposition, "Que seráfeito de mim triste?" (Sotero dos Reis 1868, p. 94)\par
Triste de mim que será? Nesta passagem subentende-se o attributogrammatical, feito, do qual, triste de mim é complemento, equivalendo a proposição elliptica, á est'outra completa "Que será feito de mim triste? (Sotero dos Reis 1868, p. 94)\par
Another characteristic of the general theory to be traced in the Postillas is its reference to the relation "language/thought". In this domain we see, for example, that Sotero dos Reis refers to juízo or "judgment", albeit only in the first part of his grammar, in which he conceptualizes the proposition 26 and subject but does not pause to theorize. He also omits to mention raciocínio (reasoning), and all of his mentions of logic relate to what he calls lógicagramatical (grammatical logic) which in the final analysis, in the context of the work, is the same as grammatical correctness. There is nothing in the work regarding the logic of reasoning or the correspondence of language and thought. Thought, according to the general theory, is the result of a process involving logical reasoning and occurs in three stages: in the first, the individual conceives of a reality; in the second, he judges that which he has conceived; Global Journal of Human Social Science -25 This thesis was defended as well by Duarte (1859, p. 43): "Our statement that the Portuguese language has two verbs that enunciate being does not mean that others do not express it as well. We observe only that ser and estarsignify this in a much more expressive manner in that they are the verbs used when an attribute is enunciated by a concrete idea, such as 'I am a lover of virtue' ... 'I am ill'. and third, he formulates a logical argument, an evaluation, regarding what he has conceived and judged, which is then uttered in language (in words and gestures). This ought to be the logical foundation to be proven, but the "grammatical logic" of which our author speaks refers merely to the traditional grammatical norm, considered correct or perfect. In any event, although partial, the general theoretical relation if not realized in this case is implied.\par
Beyond the connection with general grammar which for good or ill exists here, even if it is contrary to the principles of rationalist theory there is an indication of another theoretical orientation, thought not one that is productive in this work. Soterodos Reis shows himself a man of his times (the XIXth Century) when he explains the organization of the Postillas using the metaphor of an "anatomy of language", referring perhaps to another of the theories of the age: naturalism, which employs the idea of language as an organism. The metaphor refers to the segmentation of the content to be explicated, namely the parts of the speech, which are not however the immediate topic of the work as mentioned above.\par
V. The Treatment of "Construction" in the Postillas\par
The Postillas have as a fundamental objective the study and analysis of syntax, for the work is a "guide to Portuguese construction". For this reason it will be relevant to examine how the author classifies the elements of syntax, or "the proposition", which we will undertake to compare with the "theory of construction" of Du Marsais, an author explicitly cited by Sotero dos Reis. We have already dealt with here the link between Sotero dos Reis and the general theory of Du Marsais through the adoption of the term "construction", although not in the same sense in which the French scholar uses the term.  {\ref 27} At the outset we observe that the Brazilian grammarian presents no clear systematization of the syntactic theory used to carry out his analysis of Portuguese literary texts, even though, as we commented above, the first part of the work is dedicated to presenting of the basic concepts with which he will be operating. As may be observed and as we stated above, Sotero dos Reis simply makes use of a few terms and concepts originating in French theory, and yet his analyses are primarily traditional, as may be observed from a comparison of the classification schemes of our author and those of Du Marsais. 28  {\ref 27} In this text see excerpts (  {\ref 2}) and (  {\ref 4}) on the conception of Sotero dos Reis and (  {\ref 14}) and (15) for that of Du Marsais. 28 Barbosa (1822, p. 201) who is another source for Sotero dos Reis, speaks of subordinated clauses: "Thus too in any period or complete thought there is not, nor could there be, any but three types of clauses that enter into its composition, and these are: the Principal, the Subordinate (in which the incidents are included because they invariably form part either of the subject or of the attributes of one another) and finally the governed, so-called because they serve as complements to the verbs and propositions."  -circumstantial; -completive or integral; 3rd Other terms corresponding to the above:\par
-whole, corresponding to absolute; -partial, corresponding to subordinate, circumstantial, incidental and completive.\par
This comparison of the classification of propositions in our two grammarians demonstrates once again the theoretical differences among them. With respect to the classification of propositions, this divergence is evident both in the use of the term "subordinate", which in this sense plays no role in the theory of Du Marsais, and in the classification of periods. The latter, rather than referring to "subordinate" phrases, refers to "relative" and "correlative" propositions, saying: (23) 2nd. When the meaning of a proposition places the spirit in the situation of requiring or presupposing the meaning of another proposition, we say that these propositions are relative and that one is the correlative of the other. These then are joined by conjunctions or relative terms. The mutual relations that these propositions possess among themselves constitute a total meaning that logicians term a compound proposition, and these propositions which make up the whole are partial propositions. (Du Marsais 1754, p. 82b) 2 °. Quando o sentido de uma proposição coloca o espírito na situação de exigir ou se supor o sentido de outra proposição, dizemos que essas proposições são relativas e que uma é a correlativa da outra. Então essas proposições são unidas por conjunções ou por termos relativos. As relações mútuas que essas proposições têm entre si formam um sentido total que os Lógicos chamam proposição composta; e essas proposições que formam o todo são proposições parciais. (Du Marsais 1754, p. 82b)\par
As to the period, on a superficial level the difference between these classifications may already be observed: Du Marsais does not use the categories "simple and compound" as Sotero dos Reis does, saying that the period is composed by membrosand incisos(members and submembers). The definition of the period is another dissonant note in the two theories of grammatical theory, for while the Brazilian identifies period as a frase total (total phrase) the French author does not admit "phrase" as a theoretical term, but only as a generic term as shown above (see excerpt 13). And both these interpretations differ from that of Beauzée, as presented above.\par
Finally, it is appropriate to consider the theoretical difference among the classification of propositions, although naturally the focus of both is its syntactical and semantic function. In Du Marsais, this classification is more complex, in that it is arranged in a Year 2019\par
Volume XIX Issue X Version I ( G ) series of four divisions, indicating differences among the morphosyntactic, the syntactic-semantic and the logicocognitive, the classification of Sotero dos Reis is essentially based on the syntactic-semantic role of each proposition/sentence. Sotero dos Reis creates a classification which features only two divisions, based on syntactic and semantic criteria. For this reason he views principal and approximate propositions in terms of syntactic autonomy and semantic completeness; that is, those which do not present syntactic dependence among themselves, though all propositions maintain semantic relations in the composition of the meaningful whole that is the period. The connection of these propositions may come about as a matter of mere proximity, with or without the aid of connectors (conjunctions). Likewise, in working with the syntactic and the semantic he classifies sentences both in terms of the syntactic connection created by means of connectors and by semantic means, that is, in terms of the semantic connection that principal and subordinate propositions maintain among themselves.\par
The six-part classification of Du Marsais is broader in that it employs various criteria, although there remain lacunae and repetitions. Let us examine the interpretation of these divisions based on the criteria which gave rise to them. a syntactic and semantic criterion used in the consideration of the syntacticsemantic whole or the syntactic incompleteness of the proposition, without prejudice to its understanding in the latter case.\par
6th division: a logico-syntactic criterion used in considering the relation of words in the proposition and statement with thought.\par
The repetitions referred to above are visible, for example, in the classifications set forth in the second and fourth division, which deal with the same grammatical fact: the grammatical autonomy and dependence of the propositions. The fourth division introduces the idea of order, in that the proposition is the "consequential" incident of an "antecedent" and these are generally positioned side by side. Despite this the classification is broad enough to take into account grammatical facts relevant to the theory, such as ellipsis, giving rise to propositions of the fifth division, as well as the relation of language to thought, judgment and reasoning in the formation of the proposition, as the sixth division provides. Inthat case as well, there is overlap among the phenomena, in that propositions, from a grammatical and logical viewpoint, are analyzed in terms of their explicit or implicit formation (5th division). 
\section[{VI. Final Considerations}]{VI. Final Considerations}\par
Since the fathers of Port Royal composed and published a new mode of understanding and analyzing language in the Grammairegénérale et raisonnée de Port-Royal in 1660, creating a linguistic theory termed "general", the ecology of the linguistic sciences has changed. The Greco-Roman theory, which had prior to Port Royal been the only theory available for use in the interpretation of language and the construction of the universe of linguistic science, gained a competitor which, though subsidiary to it, brought new possibilities for the knowledge and explication of language. Some grammars began working in parallel with the two theories: the classical Greco-Roman (theory 1) and the general theory (theory 2). This state of affairs continued into the XIXth Century, when other technical options (e.g. evolutionary, comparative, historical, structuralist linguistics etc.) became part of the universe of grammatical analysis as well. From that moment on, grammars in many cases evolved into theoretical mosaics in which various theories were combined, though the Greco-Roman theory (theory 1) remained at a minimum a source of terminology and concepts whose basis is a dynamic one in that it lends itself to continuous debate and revision.\par
The analysis carried out in this article is an example of this situation in that we have shown how Francisco Sotero dos Reis made use of the Greco-Roman theory in combination with the general theory to interpret, in his Postillas de grammaticageral, linguistic facts of the Portuguese language through an analysis of Year 2019\par
Volume XIX Issue X Version I ( G ) literary texts, even if the author produced no new knowledge with respect to grammatical theory. We would emphasize, however, that theoretical work was not the aim of our grammarian, who intended only to apply the general theory to analyze literary texts in Portuguese.\par
The focus of this work was, on one hand, to bring this XIXth-Century Brazilian work on grammar to light in order to investigate the state of the author's linguistic knowledge in the work and to verify, on one hand, how Sotero dos Reis dealt with the general theory in order to see whether this theory was productive in his work, and on the other hand to trace, based on the terminology and concepts present in the work, the retrospective horizons of the grammarian in order to determine from its effects (the linguistic facts analyzed) the causes that led the author to interpret these as the causes of his theoretical choices, as for example, in defining the substantive verb as the affirmation of the attribute in the subject. Our conclusion on this question is that these interpretations had as their cause the author's greater understanding of the classical theory and lesser understanding of the general theory, which led to hybrid theoretical analyses in which the classical theory prevails.\par
In the general theoretical framework of the work by Sotero dos Reis the traditional theory is clearly dominant. The author does work with certain concepts of the general theory (e.g., the substantive verb, construction, proposition etc.) but is unable even to formulate concepts narrowly fitted to its principles (the "general theory") or as a result to demonstrate in conducting his analyses the difference in interpretation stemming from this theory. His analysis of literary excerpts, for example, are not carried out in accordance with the concept of "proposition" in the sense that this term is found in the texts of both the GGR and the encyclopedists. The analyses of the Brazilian grammarian are carried out, as shown in item 4, using traditional theory in the identification of absolute and subordinate clauses (though he calls these "propositions") which, when joined, compose the period.\par
Another relevant point is that the analysis does not seek to demonstrate the logic of reasoning in the relation of the statement with the thought which originates it. On the contrary, Sotero dos Reis speaks of "grammatical logic" when he judges as incorrect a statement not in accord with classical literary usage, that is, as a norm which may only have been observed in literary texts. The problem in taking such a stance is not exactly the condemnation of the grammatical imprecision detected but that the grammarian does not work to demonstrate the "logic of ratiocination" that led the writer, the author of the excerpt, to produce the grammatical formulation that he has analysed and found to be incorrect. Rather, Sotero dos Reis merely rewrites the text in order to correct what he judges incorrect, in order to demonstrate how the text should be written in accordance with the logic of grammar. This makes it clear that the grammarian operates more on the plane of expression and less on the plane of the comprehension of language, positioning him predominantly in the camp of traditional grammar and not that of general grammar.\par
Contrary to this tendency, however, the analysis of a peculiarity of the Portuguese language (idiomatism) suggests that our grammarian observes one of the maxims of the general theory -according to which to every verb there corresponds a subject -when he theorizes on the subject of the "unipersonal verb" haver and attributes to it a "concealed subject" which, however, in our view, functions neither grammatically nor logically as a subject. In other cases, in which he studies ellipsis, his reasoning is identical and is in this respect identical to the general theory.\par
Research on the Postillas de grammaticageral has made clear that although the author worked with concepts of the general theory his work is not representative of this model. It is impossible to state however whether the lack of theoretical consistency with respect to this theory is due to the fact that the author had no direct access to the primary sources of rationalism or rather failed to understand correctly the general theory that represented something novel in his work. As to secondary sources he most certainly knew the Grammaticaphilosophica da lingua portuguesaouprincipios da grammaticageralapplicados á nossalinguagemof JeronymoSoares Barbosa, the only Portuguese grammar cited in the Postillasand then only in the introduction. The work analysed is therefore more traditional and less general in nature.  
\section[{References Références Referencias}]{References Références Referencias}\begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{}\includegraphics[]{image-2.png}
\caption{\label{fig_0}}\end{figure}
   \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{1} \par 
\begin{longtable}{}
\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_1}Table 1 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.7160505836575876\textwidth}P{0.13394941634241245\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep Year 2019\\
Das duas proposições subordinadas, a primeira, Que a\tabcellsep Volume XIX Issue X Version I\\
fortuna não deixadurar muito, é uma circumstancial incidente restrictiva, ligada á principal pelo\tabcellsep ( G )\\
adjectivoconjunctivo, que; a segunda, que no peito escripto tinhas, é outra circumstancial incidente restrictiva, ligada tambem á principal pelo adjectivoconjunctivo, que. Ambas ellascahem sobre o attributo da proposição, que modificão, e estão na ordem directa.\tabcellsep -Global Journal of Human Social Science\\
© 2019 Global Journals\tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_4}}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{} \par 
\begin{longtable}{}
\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_5}}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{2} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.5004672897196261\textwidth}P{0.3495327102803738\textwidth}}
Du Marsais (1754, pp. 73-92)\tabcellsep Sotero dos Reis (1868, pp. 5-25)\\
Proposition Absolute or complete. Relative or partial proposition. We also call them "correlative".\tabcellsep Proposition Absolutes: principal and approximate (corresponding to syndetic and asyndetic coordinates). Subordinates: circumstantial, completive or integral, whole, partial and incidental.\\
Period A set of relative or partial propositions forms the period.\tabcellsep Period A complete phrase, a perfect and absolute meaning,\\
Division: the period is composed by: 1. members; 2. submembers; 3. members and submembers.\tabcellsep formed by one or more propositions Division: a period may be: 1. simple; 2. compound.\\
Divisions and types of propositions:\tabcellsep \\
1st\tabcellsep \\
Direct proposition (verb in the indicative mood).\tabcellsep Divisions and types of propositions:\\
Indirect proposition (verb in some other).\tabcellsep 1st\\
2nd\tabcellsep Absolute propositions:\\
Absolute or complete proposition.\tabcellsep -principal;\\
Relative or partial proposition.\tabcellsep -approximate [corresponding to syndetic and\\
3rd\tabcellsep asyndetic coordinates].\\
Explanatory (explicit) proposition.\tabcellsep 2nd\\
Determinative (implicit or elliptical) proposition.\tabcellsep Subordinate propositions:\\
4th\tabcellsep \\
Principal proposition.\tabcellsep \\
Incidental proposition.\tabcellsep \\
5th\tabcellsep \\
Explicit proposition.\tabcellsep \\
Implicit or elliptical proposition.\tabcellsep \\
6th\tabcellsep \\
The proposition as viewed grammatically.\tabcellsep \\
The proposition as viewed logically.\tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_6}Table 2 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{3} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.08969155844155843\textwidth}P{0.7603084415584415\textwidth}}
1st division:\tabcellsep a morphological criterion based on consideration of the verbal mood present in propositions (verb in the present indicative or other mood)\\
2nd division:\tabcellsep a morphological criterion based on consideration of the verbal mood present in propositions (verb in the present indicative or other mood)\\
\tabcellsep a syntactic criterion based on the anaphoric referential relations among the\\
3rd division:\tabcellsep terms of the propositions, with or without a restrictive or specifier meaning among the terms of the relation.\\
4th division:\tabcellsep a syntactic and semantic criterion, autonomy, dependence, order of terms in a proposition\\
5th division:\tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_7}Table 3 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.7679671457905544\textwidth}P{0.01570841889117043\textwidth}P{0.020944558521560575\textwidth}P{0.029671457905544145\textwidth}P{0.01570841889117043\textwidth}}
Primary sources\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{1. Barbosa, J. S. (1822). Grammaticaphilosophica da}\\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{lingua portuguesa ou Principios da grammatica geral}\\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{aplicados à nossa linguagem. Lisboa: Tipographia}\\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{da Academia das Sciencias.}\tabcellsep \\
2. Beauzée,\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{N.(1765).}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{L'Encyclopédie.}\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Éditionsnumérique,}\tabcellsep colaborative\tabcellsep et\tabcellsep critique.\\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{Disponibledans http://enccre.academie-sciences.fr/}\\
encyclopedie,\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{3. Beauzée, N. (1767). Grammaire générale ou}\\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{exposition raisonnée des éléments nécessaires du}\\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{langage: pour servir de fondement à l'étude de}\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{toutes les langues.}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_8}}\end{figure}
 			\footnote{In France, philosophical grammar existed up until the XXth century although as Fournier says (2013, p. 11), the model was considered "a late development" already in the XIXth Century. In the XXth Century, perhaps, grammars contributing to such a model may be rare given that the author cited mentions only two examples of this type of work in investigating the theory of verb tense.} 			\footnote{Cf. Gonçalves (1998).3  On rationalist grammar in Portugal read\hyperref[b12]{Gonçalves (2006)} and\hyperref[b21]{Santos (2015)}.} 			\footnote{All translations from the French of the Encyclopédie were performed by the author of this article.} 			\footnote{Rationalist Theory in the Postillas de Grammatica Geral of Francisco Sotero dos Reis} 			\footnote{© 2019 Global Journals} 			\footnote{The verb "is a word whose principal use is to signify affirmation". Further down, the authors write: "The connection between these two terms (subject and attribute) is properly speaking the action of our spirit that affirms the attribute of the subject". (Arnauld; Lancelot 1810, pp. 325, 326.Emphasis ours)\hyperref[b46]{24} This approach was used by Antônio da Costa Duarte beginning at the earliest with the 4th edition of his Compendio da grammatica da lingua portugueza (1859). (cf. Leite 2018).} 			\footnote{See the excerpt here in this text(11).} 		 		\backmatter  			  				\begin{bibitemlist}{1}
\bibitem[Grammaticaphilosophica et al.]{b26}\label{b26} 	 		\textit{},  		 			Grammaticaphilosophica 		,  		 			Da Linguaportugueza 		,  		 			Lisboa 		.  		Officina de Simão Thaddeo Ferreira.  	 
\bibitem[Ferreira]{b35}\label{b35} 	 		\textit{},  		 			Fructuoso Ferreira 		.  		 	 
\bibitem[Bacellar and De L. E ()]{b25}\label{b25} 	 		\textit{},  		 			B Bacellar 		,  		 			M De L. E 		.  		1783.  	 
\bibitem[Galvão and De ()]{b0}\label{b0} 	 		\textit{},  		 			T Galvão 		,  		 			C De 		.  		1863. 1863. 1863. Reis Sotero.  	 
\bibitem[Colombat et al. ()]{b9}\label{b9} 	 		\textit{},  		 			B Colombat 		,  		 			J.-M Fournier 		,  		 			Ch Puech 		.  		2017.  	 
\bibitem[Cavaliere ()]{b8}\label{b8} 	 		‘A corrente racionalista da gramática brasileira no século XIX’.  		 			R S Cavaliere 		.  	 	 		\textit{XIX).Münster: NodusPublikationem}  		2010. 1 p. .  	 	 (Assunção, C) 
\bibitem[Santos (ed.) ()]{b21}\label{b21} 	 		\textit{A gramática racionalista em Portugal no século XIX},  		 			M H Santos 		.  		León, R. \& Duarte, S.A gramática racionalista na Península Ibérica (ed.)  		2015. Porto: FLUP.  	 
\bibitem[Auroux ()]{b6}\label{b6} 	 		‘A revolução tecnológica da gramatização’.  		 			S Auroux 		.  	 	 		\textit{Trad. do francês por Eni Orlandi. Campinas, SP : UNICAMP},  				2009.  	 	 (3ª ed.) 
\bibitem[Leite (ed.) ()]{b16}\label{b16} 	 		\textit{Anotações sobre o Compendio da GrammaticaPhilosophica da LinguaPortugueza, de Padre Antonio da Costa Duarte},  		 			M Q Leite 		.  		LEITE, M. Q.\&Pelfrene, Arnaud (ed.)  		2018b. 2018a.  	 
\bibitem[Lobato ()]{b39}\label{b39} 	 		\textit{Arte da grammatica da linguaportugueza. Lisboa: Regia Officina Typografica, 1770},  		 			A J Lobato 		,  		 			R 		.  		 \url{http://ctlf.ens-lyon.fr/t\textunderscore fiche.asp?t=778}  		1770.  	 
\bibitem[Auroux ()]{b5}\label{b5} 	 		 			S Auroux 		.  		\textit{Les Méthodes d'Historicisation. Histoire, Epistémologie, Langage, t. XXVIII, f. 1},  				2006.  	 
\bibitem[Duarte and Da ()]{b32}\label{b32} 	 		\textit{Compendio da grammaticaphilosophica da linguaportugueza},  		 			A Duarte 		,  		 			C Da 		.  		 Maranhão: S.l.  		1840.  	 	 (2ª edição) 
\bibitem[Duarte and Da ()]{b33}\label{b33} 	 		\textit{Compendio da grammaticaphilosophica da linguaportugueza},  		 			A Duarte 		,  		 			C Da 		.  		1853. Maranhão: Tipografia do Frias.  	 	 (3ª edição) 
\bibitem[Duarte and Da (ed.) ()]{b34}\label{b34} 	 		\textit{Compendio da grammaticaphilosophica da linguaportugueza},  		 			A Duarte 		,  		 			C Da 		.  		Maranhão: Livraria do Editor F (ed.)  		1859.  	 	 (4ª edição) 
\bibitem[Duarte and Da ()]{b36}\label{b36} 	 		\textit{Compendio da grammaticaphilosophica da linguaportugueza},  		 			A Duarte 		,  		 			C Da 		.  		1862. Maranhão: Tipografia do Frias.  	 	 (5ª edição) 
\bibitem[Duarte and Da (ed.) ()]{b37}\label{b37} 	 		\textit{Compendio da grammaticaphilosophica da linguaportugueza},  		 			A Duarte 		,  		 			C Da 		.  		 \url{http://ctlf.ens-lyon.fr/t\textunderscore resul.asp?num=3373}  		Livraria do Editor Antonio Pereira Ramos D'Almeida. Acessívelem (ed.)  		1877.  	 	 (6ª edição) 
\bibitem[Leite et al. ()]{b15}\label{b15} 	 		‘Compendio da GrammaticaPhilosophica da LinguaPortugueza, de Padre Antonio da Costa Duarte (6ª edição, 1877)’.  		 			Marli Leite 		,  		 			Quadros 		,  		 			Arnaud Pelfrene 		.  		 \xref{http://dx.doi.org/10.11606/9788575063170}{10.11606/9788575063170}.  		 \url{https://doi.org/10.11606/9788575063170}  	 	 		\textit{Orgs.)}  		2018a.  	 
\bibitem[Leite et al. ()]{b14}\label{b14} 	 		\textit{Compendio de grammatica philosophica da língua portugueza},  		 			M Q Leite 		,  		 			A De 		,  		 			Da Costa Duarte 		.  		 \xref{http://dx.doi.org/10.18364/rc.v1i55.285}{10.18364/rc.v1i55.285}.  		 \url{http://dx.doi.org/10.18364/rc.v1i55.285}  		2018.  	 	 (S.l.], (58) 99-130) 
\bibitem[Bezerra and Da ()]{b27}\label{b27} 	 		\textit{Compendio de grammaticaphilosophicado liceu provincial},  		 			M S Bezerra 		,  		 			S Da 		.  		1861. Ceará: Tip. Social.  	 
\bibitem[Duarte and Da ()]{b31}\label{b31} 	 		\textit{Compendio de grammaticaportugueza, para uso das Escolas de Primeiras Letras},  		 			A Duarte 		,  		 			C Da 		.  		1829. Maranhão: Tipografia Nacional.  	 
\bibitem[Condillac ()]{b30}\label{b30} 	 		\textit{Cours d'étude pour l'instruction du prince de Parme},  		 			É B Condillac 		.  		 \url{https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k42605n?rk=21459}  		1775. 2.  	 	 (Directions pour la conscience d'un roi) 
\bibitem[Blake ()]{b29}\label{b29} 	 		‘Diccionario bibliographic obrazileiro’.  		 			A V A S Blake 		.  	 	 		\textit{Imprensa Nacional}  		1902. 7  (318) .  	 
\bibitem[Silva and De ()]{b45}\label{b45} 	 		‘Epitome da GrammaticaPortugueza’.  		 			A Silva 		,  		 			M De 		.  		 \url{http://ctlf.ens-lyon.fr/t\textunderscore texte.asp?t=805}  	 	 		\textit{Lisboa: Off. Simão Thaddeo Ferreira. Acessível}  		1806.  	 
\bibitem[Bithencourt (ed.) ()]{b28}\label{b28} 	 		\textit{Epitome de grammaticaphilosophica da linguaportuguza},  		 			R C Bithencourt 		.  		Eduardo \& Henrique Lammert (ed.)  		1862. Rio de Janeiro.  	 
\bibitem[Gonçalves ()]{b11}\label{b11} 	 		 			M F C Gonçalves 		.  		 \url{http://ctlf.ens-lyon.fr/n\textunderscore fiche.asp?n=402}  		\textit{Grammatica portugueza-Manuel Dias de Sousa. Noticeau Corpus de textes linguistiques fondamentraux},  				1998.  	 
\bibitem[Arnauld and Lancelot ()]{b24}\label{b24} 	 		\textit{Grammaire générale et raisonnée de Port-Royal, avec un Essai sur l'origine et les progrès de la langue françoise, par M. Petitot},  		 			A Arnauld 		,  		 			C Lancelot 		.  		1810.  	 	 (et suivie du commentaire de M. Duclos. Paris:Bossange et Masson. Disponible en: gallica.bnf.fr) 
\bibitem[Reis (ed.) ()]{b42}\label{b42} 	 		\textit{Grammatica portugueza,accomodada aos principiosgeraes da palavra, seguidos de immediadaapllicação pratica},  		 			F S Reis 		.  		 \url{emhttp://ctlf.ens-lyon.fr/t\textunderscore texte.asp?t=829}  		Typ. de R. de Almeida \& C. Acessível (ed.)  		1866. 1871. Maranhão[São Luiz; Maranhão [São Luiz.  	 	 (Grammatica portugueza,accomodada aos principiosgeraes da palavra, seguidos de immediadaapllicação pratica. 2ª edição) 
\bibitem[Ribeiro ()]{b44}\label{b44} 	 		‘Grammaticaportugueza philosophica’.  		 			E C Ribeiro 		.  	 	 		\textit{Imprensa Economica}  		1881.  	 
\bibitem[Reis ()]{b43}\label{b43} 	 		\textit{Grammaticaportugueza, accomodada aos principiosgeraes da palavra, seguidos de immediadaapllicação pratica},  		 			F S Reis 		.  		1877. Maranhão [São Luiz: Livraria de Magalhães.  	 	 (32ª edição) 
\bibitem[Arnauld et al. ()]{b22}\label{b22} 	 		\textit{Gramática de Port-Royal, ou gramática razoada},  		 			A Arnauld 		,  		 			C Lancelot 		,  		 			Trad 		,  		 			B F Bassetto 		,  		 			H G \&murachco 		,  		 			São Paulo 		.  		2001. 1660. Martins Fontes.  	 	 (2ª ed.) 
\bibitem[Melo ()]{b40}\label{b40} 	 		\textit{Gramática filosófica da linguagem portuguêza. Lisboa: Impressão Régia, 1818},  		 			J C Melo 		,  		 			CE 		.  		 \url{http://ctlf.ens-lyon.fr/t\textunderscore texte.asp?t=810}  		1818.  	 
\bibitem[Sousa ()]{b46}\label{b46} 	 		\textit{Gramática Portugueza ordenada segundo a doutrina dos mais celebres Gramaticos conhecidos, assim nacionaes como estrangeiros, para facilitar á mocidade Portugueza o estudo de lêr e escrever a sua proporia Lingua, e a inteligencia de outras em que quizer instruir. Coimbra: Real Imprensa da Universidade},  		 			M D Sousa 		.  		 \url{http://ctlf.ens-lyon.fr/t\textunderscore texte.asp?t=801.ANEXO29}  		1804.  	 
\bibitem[Gonçalves ()]{b12}\label{b12} 	 		\textit{Iluminismo e pensamento linguístico em Portugal: o exemplo das gramáticas filosóficas. VII Congrés de Lingüística General: actes},  		 			M F C Gonçalves 		.  		 \url{https://dspace.uevora.pt/rdpc/bitstream/10174/3059/1/Barcelona\%202006.pdf}  		2006. Barcelone. p. 146.  		 			Universitat de Barcelona 		 	 
\bibitem[Leal ()]{b13}\label{b13} 	 		 			A H Leal 		.  		\textit{Pantheon maranhense: ensaios biographicos dos maranhenses illustres já fallecidos. Lisboa : Imprensa Nacional},  				1873. p. 1.  	 
\bibitem[Du Marsais and Ch ()]{b38}\label{b38} 	 		\textit{Les Véritables principes de la grammaire ou nouvelle grammaire raisonnée pour apprendre la langue latine},  		 			C Du Marsais 		,  		 			Ch 		.  		 \url{https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k843410}  		1729. Paris. Disponible dans.  	 
\bibitem[Murici and Da ()]{b41}\label{b41} 	 		 			J Murici 		,  		 			V Da 		.  		\textit{Grammaticageral . Bahia: Typ. Constitucional de França Guerra},  				1864.  	 
\bibitem[Burton (ed.) ()]{b7}\label{b7} 	 		\textit{Os Lusíadas (The Lusiads)},  		 			R F Burton 		.  		 \url{http://www.burtoniana.org/books/1880-Os\%20lusiadas/Os\%20lusiadas\%20Vol\%201.pdf}  		his wife Isabel Burton. London: Tinsley Brothers. Online (ed.)  		1880.  	 	 (Englished by) 
\bibitem[Leite and Quadros ()]{b17}\label{b17} 	 		‘PELFRENE, Arnaud (orgs.).Grammaticaportugueza, de Francisco Sotero dos Reis’.  		 			Marli Leite 		,  		 			Quadros 		.  		 \xref{http://dx.doi.org/10.11606/9788575063811}{10.11606/9788575063811}.  	 	 		\textit{São Paulo: FFLCH},  				2019.  	 	 (2ª edição 1871) 
\bibitem[Reis (ed.) ()]{b1}\label{b1} 	 		\textit{Postillas de grammmatica geral applicada á linguaportugueza pela analyse dos classicos, ou guia para a construcçãoportugueza},  		 			F S Reis 		.  		Typ. B de Mattos (ed.)  		1863. São Luiz.  	 
\bibitem[Reis and Dos ()]{b3}\label{b3} 	 		\textit{Postillas de grammmatica geral applicada á linguaportugueza pela analyse dos classicos, ou guia para a construcçãoportugueza},  		 			Sotero Reis 		,  		 			Dos 		.  		 \url{https://archive.org/details/DELTA53507FA/page/n5}  		1868.  	 	 (2ª ed.). Maranhão [São Luiz]: s.l. Disponível em) 
\bibitem[Reis ()]{b2}\label{b2} 	 		\textit{Postillas de grammmatica geral applicada á linguaportugueza pela analyse dos classicos, ou guia para a construcçãoportugueza},  		 			F S Reis 		.  		1870.  	 	 (3ª ed.). Maranhão [São Luiz]: s.l. Disponível em https://archive.org/details/DELTA53507FA/page/n5 [incompleteedition) 
\bibitem[Argote and Contador De ()]{b23}\label{b23} 	 		\textit{Regras da linguaportugueza, espelho da lingua latina, Ou disposição para facilitar o ensino da língua Latina pelas regras da Portugueza},  		 			Jeronymo Argote 		,  		 			Contador De 		.  		1725. Lisboa: Officina da Musica.  	 	 (2ª edição) 
\bibitem[Grammaticaportugueza and Francisco ()]{b19}\label{b19} 	 		\textit{São Paulo: FFLCH},  		 			De Grammaticaportugueza 		,  		 			Francisco 		.  		 \xref{http://dx.doi.org/10.11606/9788575063811}{10.11606/9788575063811}.  		1871.  	 	 (Sotero dos Reis. (2ª edição) 
\bibitem[Leite (ed.) ()]{b18}\label{b18} 	 		\textit{Teoria e método na Grammaticaportugueza de Francisco Sotero dos Reis},  		 			M Q Leite 		.  		Leite, M. Q. PelfrenE, A. (ed.)  		2019.  	 
\bibitem[Theoreticaltexts and others]{b4}\label{b4} 	 		\textit{Theoreticaltexts and others},  		 	 
\bibitem[Translated from French by Marli Quadros Leite e Jacqueline Léon. São Paulo: Contexto ()]{b10}\label{b10} 	 		\textit{Translated from French by Marli Quadros Leite e Jacqueline Léon. São Paulo: Contexto},  		2010.  	 	 (Uma história das ideias linguísticas) 
\bibitem[Polachini ()]{b20}\label{b20} 	 		\textit{Uma historial serial da gramática brasileira oitocentista de língua portuguesa},  		 			B Polachini 		.  		 \url{https://teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/8/8139/tde-06072018-120101/pt-br.php}  		2017.  		 			Tese de doutorado. Universidade de São Paulo (USP 		 	 
\end{bibitemlist}
 			 		 	 
\end{document}
