Tagalog nang

Cena, Resty rcena at epcor.ca
Tue Jul 24 17:36:40 UTC 2001

First, a bit of a review, for my own sake. There's an anomaly in the
following sentence pair:

(1) Tanim mo, ani mo "Your plant, your harvest"
(2) Pangako mo, tuparin mo "Your promise, fulfill it"

The anomaly is that while [ani] "harvest" is in its base form, [tuparin],
"fulfill" cannot similarly appear in its base form [tupad]. I suggested that
these constructions are different. Thus, (1) has the structure (3), and (2)
the structure (4). Therefore, we don't expect the verb [tuparin] to appear
naked here.

(3)  possessive nominal, possessive nominal
(4)  possessive nominal, verbal clause

J-P G. Potet remakred that this is an ingenious and practical analysis, but
wondered whether it is linguistically sound.

First, [tuparin] is a bad choice as an example here, since, [tupad] is not
in the same frequency range as [tanim], [ani], [pangako]. I can't find a use
for [tupad] as nominal. Let's replace [tuparin] with [problemahin].

(5) Pangako mo, problemahin mo "Your promise, (so) make it your problem"

There is no problem with [problemahin] reducing to its root, thus:

(6) Pangako mo, problema mo "Your promise, your problem"

This could suggest that the inability of [tuparin -> tupad] in the context
above may in the first place be a lexical idio rather than a syntactic

J-P G. Potet offered two considerations that led him to suggest that the two
cited sentences belong to either (7) or (8), although he is unsure as yet as
to which one, but is leaning towards (8).

(7) possessive nominal, possessive nominal
(8) verbal phrase, verbal phrase

This of course relates to Paz Naylor's classic problem (Is "kinain ko" a
verbal or a nominal construction?), which regretabbly I never paid much
attention to when I was learning linguistics (having analyzed it as a verbal
construction), but now appears to me to be a fundamental issue. I don't
quite appreciate -- yet -- the nuances of J-P G Potet's points, so I will
not respond to them in this post.

Let's look at some asymmetries involving the two constructions (3-4). Now,
asymmetries are hard to come by. Careers can be built on a rich repository
of asymmetries. Sadly, my bin is near empty, but I did manage a few scraps.
The idea here is that if the second part of (1) is nominal, then it will
behave like a noun phrase, and if the second part of (2=9) is verbal, then
it will behave like a verbal phrase.

(1) Tanim mo, ani mo "Your plant, your harvest"
(9) Tanim mo, anihin mo "Your plant, (so) you harvest it"

The conjunction test may apply here. In the examples below, the noun [ani]
conjoins well with another noun, but not with a verb. Similarly, the verb
[anihin] conjoins well with a verb but not with a noun.

(10) Tanim mo, ani at pagkain mo "Your plant, your harvest and food"
(11) Tanim mo, ani at *itinda mo "Your plant, your harvest and you sell it"

(12) Tanim mo, anihin at *pagkain mo "Your plant, you harvest it and your
(13) Tanim mo, anihin at itinda mo "Your plant, you harvest and sell it"

I apologize for the length of this posting.


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	potet [SMTP:POTETJP at wanadoo.fr]
> Sent:	Monday, July 23, 2001 4:55 PM
> Subject:	nang
> "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

More information about the An-lang mailing list