Fw: tanim mo, ani mo

[Paz B. Naylor]

P.S.  In Naylor (1995) "Subject, Topic, and Tagalog Syntax" in Bennett,
Bynon, and Hewitt eds., Subject, Voice, and Ergativity (School of Oriental
and African Studies, University of London), the lack of syntactic
distinction between semantically nominal and verbal words in Tagalog is
brought in and discussed within the broader perspective of Tagalog syntax as
a whole.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paz B. Naylor" <pnaylor at umich.edu>
To: <POTETJP at wanadoo.fr>; " AUSTRONESIAN LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTICS"
<AN-LANG at anu.edu.au>
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 11:33 AM
Subject: Re: tanim mo, ani mo


> 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
> copula.
>
> 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
> NOMINA ACTIONIS.
>
> 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>
> To: " AUSTRONESIAN LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTICS" <AN-LANG at anu.edu.au>
> 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
> or
> > 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
> who
> > 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 /
> multipurpose
> > 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
> their
> > 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
> > 92114 CLICHY CEDEX
> > FRANCE
> >
>