Tagalog nang **(Warning: a longish reply)**

[Cena, Resty]

Essentially I was unsure on how the replaceability of [nang] by [sa] in some
contexts sheds light on whether (1-2) have the structures (3-4),
respectively,

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

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

or, the structures either of (5-6) as you suggested:

(5) possessive nominal, possessive nominal | verbal clause
(6) possessive nominal, possessive nominal | verbal clause

that is to say, the second component in both sentences is either nominal or
verbal, but they cannot be different from each other.

In a previous e-mail, you suggested that the [nang] phrases [nang pakwan]
"watermelon" and [nang magsasaka] "farmer" are different.

(7) Nagtanim ang magsasaka nang pakwan "The farmer has/had planted
watermelon"
(8) Itinanim nang magsasaka ang pakwan "The farmer has/had planted
watermelon"

This difference allows the oblique marker [sa] to replace [nang] in [nang
magsasaka] as in (9) but not in [nang pakwan] as in (10).(The Tagalog I
speak disallows (9) as well.) This makes [sa magsasakang itinanim] a
possessor predicate.

(9) Sa magsasakang itinanim ang pakwan.
(10) *Sa pakwang nagtanim ang magsasaka.

The difference, if I get it right, is that the two phrases [nang magsasaka]
and [nang pakwan] belong to different cases.  I'm not sure how 'case' is
used in this context. In the sense of 'deep case', meaning the semantic role
of the participant, there is no doubt that the two phrases, despite sharing
the same marker, belong to different cases. So I take it case here refers to
the traditional morphological or grammatical case. (Please stop me at this
point if I misinterpret.)  At this point, I now try to relate the
dissimilar-case analysis to the original sentences (1-2) but I get lost in
the way.

If what we're saying here is that the 'case' of [mo] in [ani mo] and the
case of [mo] in [tuparin mo] are different, in one sense this is not in
question (the first is genitive and the second is nominative), and in
another sense, aren't we merely re-stating the same problem, that is to say,
why the genitive mo allows reduction but not the nominative mo? (To which my
explanation is that the nominative requires a verb head but the genitive
requires a noun head -- am I also offering here a re-statement rather than
an explanation?)

Your second point was that [nang magsasaka]/[sa magsasaka] "is the same
whether it goes with a nominal form or a verbal form", as in (11-12) below.
(The contrary case is that [nang/sa pakwan] does not behave this way.)

(11) pakwan nang magsasaka, sa magsasakang pakwan (both nominal phrases)
(12) itinanim nang magsasaka, sa magsasakang itinanim (both verbal
constructions)

On the basis of these two points, the conclusion was made that the phrases
[ani mo] and [tuparin mo] cannot have dissimilar structures (i.e., verbal or
nominal but not different from each other). Hence, my analysis based on
different construction types cannot stand.

So my problem is this: Granted that an agent NP can change its case from
nominative to genitive and that a patient NP may not do so while holding the
verb head constant, how is this an argument against the analysis of (1-2) as
underlyingly (3-4) and in favor of (5-6)? I don't see the connection at this
point.

RestyCena








> -----Original Message-----
> From:	potet [SMTP:POTETJP at wanadoo.fr]
> Sent:	Tuesday, July 24, 2001 2:38 PM
> To:	 AUSTRONESIAN LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTICS
> Subject:	Tagalog nang
>
> "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." Resty CENA
>
> nang X replaceable by sa X-ng Vs nang Y not replaceable by *sa Y-ng
>
> I understand your caution because this is one of the fundamental
> principles
> of  Tagalog syntax; it is not a matter of nuance. :-) Either one proves
> the
> demonstration is false or accept it; there is no middle way.
> Resty, I think your valuable explanations belong more to the field of
> style
> than of that of syntax.
>  Best
> Jean-Paul G. POTET