# Nalipol na lahat



## bugsy1

_"Ang mga unang alagad ni Cristo’y pinasunod nila sa kanilang hulihan o tinuruan nila ng mga aral ng demonio, at ang mga hindi sumunod o sumalansang ay kanilang pinagpapatay. Kaya walang natirang tupa si Cristo noong unang siglo, Nalipol na lahat."
_
Can anyone translate this into English? What does the last sentence means?


----------



## DotterKat

_Christ's first disciples were made to follow or else were taught lessons by the devil, and those unwilling to follow or become one of them were all put to death. Thus, none of Christ's sheep were left in the first century. All were annihilated._

The text obviously refers to the persecution suffered by first century Christians who were compelled to renounce their faith or face certain death. *Pinasunod sa kanilang hulihan* is evocative of an image of a mass of people going a certain way and another group of people being made or forced to join in and follow the first group at the end of the line. *Tinuruan nila ng mga aral ng demonio* refers to the non-Christian beliefs that were imposed on these early disciples of Christ. _*Salansang*_ (from salansan) literally means to put things in order or to stack things in an orderly fashion but in the context above simply means to join or become a part of something, or more specifically as indicated in the text, the early Christians' refusal to be grouped together with the non-believers of Christ. _*Tupa*_ (sheep) obviously is a metaphor for Christ's disciples and *nalipol* (from lipol) means to be annihilated, totally destroyed or eradicated.
Clarification: ..._.tinuruan nila ng mga aral ng demonio_ strictly speaking should be: .....they (the early Christians) were taught (by the non-believers) lessons (coming) _from_ the demon / devil. However the essential thought would be the same, that of being forced to learn ideas that run counter to their Christian beliefs.


----------



## bugsy1

Thanks that makes sense. The last sentence means "_all were annihilated_."

The person I am talking with said "*nalipo*l" means "*nawala*." He said that the English interpretation should be "*all were gone*," or "*all were lost*." It has nothing to do with the word "pinagpapatay" ( people who were put to death, or killed)

I argued that the first sentence talks about two groups of people, those who listened to the teaching of the demon and those who remained steadfast. The one who remain steadfast were put to death. The second sentence and third sentence confirmed this.

_Thus, none of Christ's sheep were left in the first century. All were annihilated._

But he said that the third sentence, "_nalipol na lahat_" should not be interpreted as "_all were annihilated_," *but as* "_all were lost_" or "_all were gone_" since it is "_nalipol na lahat_ is talking about the two groups, the one who followed the teachings of the demons and the groups that were put to death. Does that makes any sense?


----------



## DotterKat

Absolutely not. The Tagalog text could not be much clearer. It is speaking of two different groups, one faithful and the other not with the faithful group having been annihilated by those who were not. Unless your friend is arguing a semantic difference between *nalipol* and *nawala*, there is not much difference in the essential thought that one group was totally exterminated by the other group. If your friend is proposing that _all were lost / gone_ is equivalent to _all were annihilated_, then he would be correct though I don't know why he would choose a less potent word than *annihilate / exterminate* when that is exactly what *lipol* translates to in English. Also, I don't know if it is a grammatical error in the original Tagalog text or an error in your transcription but the last sentence shows a comma before _Nalipol na lahat_. Whether or not _nalipol na lahat_ is a subordinate clause of the previous sentence preceded by a comma or a semicolon ---

_Kaya walang natirang tupa si Cristo noong unang siglo*;* nalipol na lahat.
_
OR

Using a subordinating conjunction ---

_Kaya walang natirang tupa si Cristo noong unang siglo *dahil* nalipol na lahat.
_
OR is actually the third sentence, its thought is still subordinate or a continuation of the previous sentence, that by the end of 99 AD, none of Christ's original followers were left since they were _all *already* annihilated_ (_nalipol *na* lahat_). Of course, one could argue that some of Christ's original followers did escape to surrounding regions and spread the word and thus the obvious survival of Christianity as a religion today but we are simply limiting ourselves to translating your Tagalog text, which translates to what I posted before.


----------



## bugsy1

Thanks again. “*Nalipol na lahat*” is actually a third sentence, it is my mistake, and it should have been a period instead of a comma.

So you think my argument is right, that the third sentence talks about the annihilation of the second group (those who remain steadfast) by the first group (those who listened to the teaching of the demon). That the third sentence is a conclusion of what happened to those who remain steadfast, that this second group was annihilated or eradicated? If you think I am right, *how do you explain this grammatically?*

His argument is that the third sentence refers to both groups that is why his interpretation is “*All were gone*.”


----------



## DotterKat

The explanation is self evident. Simply taking the text as a whole leads  you to the inevitable conclusion that  I have already pointed out. If  you want to parse out the entire text, then:

_A)Ang mga unang alagad ni Cristo’y (Christ's first disciples) --- _group #1

_ B)pinasunod nila (were made to follow [by them]) ---- *them* _being group#2

_C)sa kanilang (....were made to follow [in their footsteps]) ---- *their* _being group #2

_D)hulihan o tinuruan nila (....[in their footsteps] or were taught [by them]) ---- *them* _being group#2

_E)ng mga aral ng demonio (lessons [coming from] the demon/devil)

__F)at ang mga hindi sumunod o sumalansang (and those unwilling to follow or [fall into order / join in] ---- *those* _being a portion of group #1

_ G)ay kanilang pinagpapatay (were all put to death [by them]) ---- *them *_being group #2

_H)Kaya walang natirang tupa si Cristo noong unang siglo.  Nalipol na lahat (__Thus, none of Christ's sheep were left in the first century. All were annihilated) ---- _refers  exclusively to group #1, and makes evident that all of group #1  apparently remained faithful since in phrases F) and G) it is mentioned  that "those who did not follow (group #2's ways or agree to learn  lessons from the demon) or did not join in were all put to death. Since  the text's conclusion states that all of group #1 was annihilated, the  internal logic of the text can only mean that all of them remained  faithful.

Finally, it simply does not make sense that both groups were  annihilated. First, by necessity one group has to have stayed alive to  do that massacre of another group (in not one instance does the text say  that they killed _each other_) and most crucially, the phrase _walang natirang tupa (none of Christ's sheep) _can  only refer to those who remained faithful. How can those who followed  lessons coming from the demon be said to be among Christ's sheep? That  by itself differentiates two groups, faithful versus unfaithful and with  the last phrase _none of Christ's sheep were left _we come to the  obvious conclusion that one group survived (group#2, unfaithful) and  another group did not (group#1, faithful --- massacred, annihilated,  exterminated by group#2).


----------



## bugsy1

Did is how he explained it. He said that my mistake is I translated the word “*nalipol*” to “*annihilate*,” when it should have been “*nawala*.”

“”Nalipol na lahat” =  “Nawala na lahat” = “All were gone”

Then he cited a Batangueno dictionary that says nalipol = nawala

So nalipol refers to *both* groups. The first group *fell to apostasy* so they are no longer considered Christ disciples. The second group who remained steadfast *was killed*. He said that the second sentence confirmed this, there is none left, *meaning all of Christ’s sheep either fell to apostasy (no longer considered Christ’s sheep) or killed.*

_*Thus, none of Christ's sheep were left in the first century.*_

The third sentence is a conclusion that all (*meaning the 1st and 2nd group*) were gone.

 "_*All were gone.*_"


----------



## DotterKat

My word! I see his point and concede that the text could be interpreted that way. However, even if I trust that *nalipol* translates into Batangueño as *nawala* I still would question the resulting ambiguity of the text, (and why is a Batangueño dictionary being used to translate a Tagalog text in the first place?) Why not say something along the lines of "....noong unang siglo. *Nawala ang sangkalahatan sa kamatayan o pagkakalinlang.*" (...in the first century. *All were put to death or else misled*.) That would make it much clearer that there are actually three groups involved in that text: #1 faithful #2 unfaithful and #3 the group that led #2 into the path of apostasy and #1 to their death. I suppose that if religious texts were crystal clear and not open to subjective interpretation then there would be much less strife and disharmony in the world, let alone a wee little grammar forum!


----------



## bugsy1

Exatly, why used a strong word such as "nalipol?" 

The *original* meaning of the word "*nalipo*l" is "*napuksa" "nawasak," "nagiba," which translates to "annihilate," "exterminated" "detroyed," "eradicated"*

The text that we are arguing is *over 56 years old*., the Batangas dictionary he cited is a fairly new dictionary. I suspect that only Batanguenos use this dictionary and that it applies the meaning "nawala" as it used *now*.

But the context of the third sentence definitely refers to the people who were put to death, that is *if *"nalipol" means "*annihilated*' 

_Christ's first disciples were made to follow or else were taught lessons by the devil, and those unwilling to follow or become one of them were all put to death. Thus, none of Christ's sheep were left in the first century. All were annihilated._[/I]


My question now is, is the word annihilated and adjective here or a verb?

"_All were *annihilated*_"



Because the samples that were given for "nawala" looks like a verb 

_*Lipol -- nawala*..ex nalipol ang aking cellphone_


http://www.batanggenyo.net/search?q=...15&submit.y=16

*Standard*: Ang pitaka ni Mang Pedro ay* nawala*.

*Batangas*: Ang kwartamoneda ni Ka Idro ay* nalipol*.


----------



## DotterKat

*All *(indefinite pronoun as subject) *were *(verb) *annihilated* (adjective). 

_Annihilated_ above is an adjective in verbal form, otherwise known as a participle adjective (past participle of the verb _annihilate_ used to modify the indefinite pronoun subject _all)._

We are getting close to going off-topic so I suggest you open another thread or be resigned to the fact that religious interpretation is a very personal and subjective matter. I am, so I wish you and your friend with the archaic dictionary a long and fruitful discussion of this matter.  I do have a deep respect for the _makatang Batangueño_ as my first Tagalog teacher was from Batangas  but still, hardly anyone I know would speak in such, shall we say venerable-sounding speech, in everyday life.

Good luck!


----------

