tanim mo, ani mo

Paz B. Naylor pnaylor at umich.edu
Wed Jul 18 15:33:49 UTC 2001

This is where we run into the big issue of syntactic categorial distinction
between "noun" and "verb" in Tagalog, other Philippine languages and even at
least some Austronesian languages.  Semantically, their reference may be
distinguished into NOMINA REI and NOMINA ACTIONIS.  However, with "bare"
root words, even the reference is barely distinguishable. This is the barest
way I can make this assertion - it is something I have been grappling with
and arguing for in the last decade
and therefore requires a tome to properly present.  E-mail won't do.

 This is the case with  the first sentence.  The words ANI and TANIM
"as is", without any markers,  are nouns and the sentence is of the
"nonverbal type, i.e., Nom + Nom" for which Tagalog does not have/use a

The infixed TUPARIN in the second sentence is not as clear-cut in its
morphological form as the other words.  Semantically, it is verbal in the
sense that it refers to an action but syntactically, with its
genitive/attributive marker MO, it is nominal - a perfect example of a

I have not published anything yet (because it is very much of a work in
progress) but I have presented papers and given lectures on this topic, most
recently at ISMIL in Leipzig, Bogazici University in Istanbul, and 34rth
Linguistics Colloquium (University of Mainz) in Germersheim. Hold your
breath - I'll be talking about it at 9ICAL in Canberra; until then,  I'll be
holding mine.

----- Original Message -----
From: "potet" <POTETJP at wanadoo.fr>
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 6:11 AM
Subject: tanim mo, ani mo

> "P.S.  The construction I pointed out is quite commonly used in aphorisms
> aphorism-like talk; e.g., "Tanim mo, ani mo" , "Pangako mo, tuparin mo"
> which  in inverse constituent order, > "Ani mo'y tanim mo" and > "Tuparin
> mo'y pangako mo"." Paz NAYLOR
> Dear Paz,
> Quite exciting. Perhaps you should give translations for our colleagues
> are not tagalists.
> [q = phonemic glottal stop]
> reference
> aníhin nang X ang Y sa Z
> harvest-focused on Y / non-focus marker / X / in-focus-marker /
> preposition / Z /
> "X to harvest Y from Z."
> 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
> bases:
> taním for taminín / tamnín
> áni for aníhin
> pangákoq for pangakúin
> Why isn't tuparín reduced to its base tupád?
> Best
> Jean-Paul G. POTET
> B.P. 46

More information about the An-lang mailing list