nang

[potet]

"Taním mó, áni mó. /plant/you/harvest/you/ = As you have planted, so you
shall harvest.
Áni mó'y taním mó. /harvest/you-AY anteposer/plant/you/  = You shall harvest
as you have planted.
Pangákoq mó, tuparín mó. /promise/you/fufill/you/ = As you have promised, so
you shall be true.
Tuparín mó'y pangákoq mó /fulfill/you-AY anteposer/promise/you/ = You shall
be true as you have promised.
I have got a question. As expected, three of the verbs are reduced to their
bases: taním for itaním,  áni for aníhin, pangákoq for ipangákoq. Why isn't
tuparín reduced to its base tupád?" Jean-Paul G. POTET

"Looks like these are two different constructions. The first (Tanim mo, ani
mo "Your plant, your harvest") consists of two possessive nominal phrases.
The other (Pangako mo, tuparin mo "Your promise, fulfill it") consists of a
possessive nominal phrase and a verbal clause. [...] Of course, declaring a
set of data to consist of two different sets with different behaviors is a
convenient and heavy-handed way of explaining things (It also works many
times.) But, take note: Many Type I constructions have Type II counterparts.
Anak mo, alagaan mo. "Your child, you take care of (him/her)"
Anak mo, alaga mo. "Your child, your ward/care/responsibility"
Anak mo, problema mo (Your child, your problem")
Anak mo rin naman, problemahin mo rin naman "Your child, too, (so) make
(him/her) your problem too" Resty CENA

Indeed, this is an ingenious explanation, and a very practical one, too.
Yet, I wonder if it is linguistically solid. My qualifications are based on
the two following points.

1) As I demonstrated in "Les marqueurs nominaux en tagal" pp. 279-292 in
Mélanges offerts à Alexis Rygaloff (1994), Paris, EHESS, CRLAO,  case is
hidden by focalisation. For example the _nang pakwán_ phrase in
Nagtaním ang magsasaká nang pakwán. /planted/IF/farmer/NF/watermelon. "The
farmer has/had planted watermelon."
is different from the _nang magsasaká_ phrase in
Itinaním nang magsasaká ang pakwán /planted/NF/farmer/IF/watermelon = The
farmer has/had planted watermelon.
in that the latter may be replaced by _sa magsasaká-ng_ in Classical
Tagalog.
Sa magsasaká-ng itinaním ang pakwán.
/NF/farmer-Linker/planted//IF/watermelon = The farmer has/had planted
watermelon.
whereas this transformation is impossible with the former
*Sa pakwá(n)-ng nagtaním ang magsasaká .
/NF/watermelon-Linker/planted/IF/farmer/. "The farmer has/had planted
watermelon."
This shows that _nang magsasaká_ and _nang pakwán_ are not in the same case
although both are non-focus phrases with the same marker. From this we may
infer that in all probability _ang magsasaká_ and _ang pakwán_ are not in
the same case although both are in-focus phrases with the same marker.
The cases of _magsasaká_ and _pakwán_ is a difficult question, so let's
leave it aside for the sake of clarity.

2) My second point is that _nang magsasaká / sa magsasaká-ng_ is the same
whether it goes with a nominal form or a verbal form

pakwán nang magsasaká / sa magsasaká-ng pakwán "(the) watermelon of the
peasant"
pakwán niyá / kaniyá-ng pakwán "his melon"

itinaním nang magsasaká / sa magsasaká-ng itiním "the peasant has/had
planted"
itinaním niyá / kaniyá-ng itinaním "he has/had planted"

Consequently, I couldn't agree with you, and say e.g. that _itinaním mó_
would be a verbal phrase and that _taním mó_ would be a possessive nominal
phrase. In the sentences provided, both are either verbal phrases or nominal
phrases.
Which are they, frankly I don't know, but for the moment I am inclined to
see them as verbal phrases in the slots they fill here simply because
_taním_ may be replaced by _itinaním_ without any change of meaning, and
because it has been conventionally posited that _itananím_ is a verbal form.

The same problem will occur with synonym constructions like the following
ones.

Kailángan kó ang bangkáq mó.  / Kinákailángan kó ang bangkáq mó.  "I need
your canoe."
Minámahál kitá. / Mahál kitá. "I love you"
Silá'y mayroó(n)-ng tindáhan doón sa Sampálok. / May tindáhan silá doón sa
Sampálok. "They have a store in Sampalok."
Náaaláman mó bá kung mayayáman sila? / Álam mó bá kung mayayáman silá? "So
you know if they are rich?"

It goes without saying that corrections and criticisms are welcome. :-)

Best

Jean-Paul G. POTET
B.P. 46
92114 CLICHY CEDEX
FRANCE