nang

[Paz B. Naylor]

As far as the NANG-phrase goes, I'd say BRAVO, Jean-Paul!
----- Original Message -----
From: "potet" <POTETJP at wanadoo.fr>
To: " AUSTRONESIAN LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTICS" <AN-LANG at anu.edu.au>
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 6:54 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
> 92114 CLICHY CEDEX
> FRANCE