# Focus confusion



## Inglip

When there are 3 objects, how do I know who is doing what?

Ibinili ng babae ng isda ang kanyang ina. 

I took this from my book, so I know the woman bought the fish. But, as absurd as it would sound, how do I know the fish didn't buy the woman? 

Probably a more relevent one would be this:

Ibinili ng guro ng alalay ang babae.

Did the assistant buy a teacher for the woman, or a teacher buy an assistant for the woman? 

What is the rule about the focus here? I read that in tagalog the word order isn't so important, what is more important is the words in the sentence. So do I know it is the teacher buying an assistant because the teacher precedes the verb?


----------



## DotterKat

You are using the *benefactive focus* in your original  Tagalog text, that is, the attention is centered on the person who  benefits from the stated action (fish was bought *for the mother*  by her daughter). If you want to preserve this benefactive focus in your  text as a grammatical exercise then a handy rule to follow is to get  the beneficiary as close to the verb as possible. Thus your sentence:

"Ibinilli ng babae ng isda ang kanyang ina", though grammatically correct, follows this pattern *V *(verb)-*S *(subject)-*DO *(direct object)-*IO *(indirect  object). See how the verb and indirect object (or beneficiary,  according to the benefactive-focus construction in the Tagalog  translation) are at opposite ends of the sentence? Put them closer  together and the benefactive-focus, as well as the the entire sentence,  will be much clearer:

Ang ina ay ibinili ng isda ng kanyang anak na babae. (The mother was bought some fish by her daughter.)

However, I would much prefer the *actor-focus* as this is more direct to the point and thus much clearer:

Bumili ang babae ng isda para sa kanyang ina / Bumili ng isda ang babae  para sa kanyang ina / Ang babae ay bumili ng isda para sa kanyang ina.  (The woman bought fish for her mother.)

As for your other sentence, which again seems to come from a book that keeps regarding people as commodities:

"Ibinili ng guro ng alalay ang babae" (The teacher bought a helper for  the woman), again this is technically sound, but unclear --- the verb  and indirect object / beneficiary are at opposite ends of the sentence.  As per the simple rule I gave you above, put the two closer together for  greater clarity:

Ang babae ay ibinili ng alalay ng guro. (The woman was bought a helper by the teacher.)

Again, this way of conjugating billi (to buy) by using i- + infix -in-   to produce the benefactive focus is fine for a grammatical exercise but  you would more likely stick to the actor-focus:

Bumili ang guro ng alalay para sa babae / Bumili ng alalay ang guro para  sa babae / Ang guro ay bumili ng alalay para sa babae. (The teacher   bought a helper for the woman.)

Finally, colloquially you would conjugate hanap (to find) or even kuha  (to get) instead of bili (to buy) in your final sentence as human beings  are neither bought nor sold:

Benefactive focus: Ang babae ay inihanap / ikinuha ng alalay ng guro. (The woman "_was found_" a helper by the teacher -----_ Note how unclear even the English translation is_. _You have to read_ _it twice to get the correct meaning._)

Again, my preference would be for the much clearer actor-focus:

(Humanap / Kumuha) ng alalay ang guro para sa babae / (Humanap / Kumuha)  ang guro ng alalay para sa babae / Ang guro ay (humanap / kumuha) ng  alalay para sa babae. _The teacher (searched for / got a) helper for the woman.

[Also, as for your question: "_When there are 3 objects, how do I know who is doing what?", _as I have indicated above, there are only two objects (direct and indirect) plus the subject_._]_


----------



## Inglip

Thanks man. 

It is an exercise for that type of verb.

So this type of verb isn't used much anyway? or was it just those particular examples? What would this focus of verb be used for? or do people just use actor-focus more commonly?


----------



## niernier

In terms of usage between the beneficiary focus and actor-focus, I can't  comment much on that but it is true that every beneficiary or recipient  focus sentence can be transformed to an actor-focus sentence which is much clearer and straightforward.


----------



## Inglip

So there is always an equivalent, so is it more common to use actor-focus? Or is it a preference thing?


----------



## mataripis

Magandang Araw Inglip. To give clarification to the given sentences, here are my translations . 1.) Bumili ng isda ang babae para sa kanyang Ina. 2.) Bumili ang alalay ng Guro para sa Babae.  The grammars you showed are not in order causing confusion to the readers.


----------



## niernier

As per suggestion by DotterKat to put the indirect object(or the beneficiary) as close to the verb as possible, I beg to disagree on that because in order to do this, you will have to use the "ay" linker which makes the sentence not conversational at all.

In my honest opinion, the sentences given by Inglip are perfectly correct beneficiary focused statements. The only problem I see is that they are textbookish examples and not something Filipinos would say at all. Furthermore, the more common 'binilhan' should be the verb, although we find that ibinili understandable. Beneficiary foucused verbs are those with affixes using ipag- or -an. 

 Also, mataripis, please be informed that your #2 translation is wrong. 



mataripis said:


> 1.) Bumili ng isda  ang babae para sa kanyang Ina. 2.) Bumili ang alalay ng Guro para sa  Babae.  The grammars you showed are not in order causing confusion to  the readers.



The underlined means, "The helper bought a teacher for the woman."

As to your question Inglip, I would dare to say yes, it's a preference thing.


----------



## DotterKat

My initial response clearly indicated that I regarded the original Tagalog text as a grammatical exercise and treated it as such, for didactic purposes. As I said, the text was correct but hardly conversational and that the actor-focus would be preferable. However, in no way is that original text more colloquial sounding than the alternative I offered. 

Ibinili ng babae ng isda ang kanyang ina. (original text)

The foregoing sentence is absolutely more stilted and less immediately comprehensible than:

Ang ina ay ibinili ng isda ng kanyang anak na babae.

There is nothing wrong with using the inversion marker _*ay*_. It is absolutely used in everyday conversations and renders what was a vague, though grammatically correct sentence, more understandable. That was what prompted the question in the first place after all.

Of course, in a truly colloquial setting one would more likely say something like:

Bumili siya ng isda para sa nanay niya.

That would indeed circumvent the inversion marker *ay*, but would not address the original question at all.


----------



## Inglip

It was an exercise about I- verbs, it also had An- as well.

I was wondering, since ng was used twice, how do I know if it was a fish who bought a woman, or a woman who bought a fish. 

Lets imagine it is a children's story (I suppose a rather grim one). And the animals can talk and walk around. 

Iniluto ng baboy ng manok ang baka.
Iniluto ng manok ng baboy ang baka.
Ang baka ay iniluto ng baboy nga manok

Excusing the grimness of this sentence. I know I can write the sentence several ways, and it means the exact same thing, but, did the chicken cook the pig, or the pig cook the chicken?


----------



## mataripis

This is more clear: Pinagluto ng Baboy ang Baka ng manok.(The Pig cooked the chicken for the Cow.)


----------



## DotterKat

Yes, as I said your original text albeit correct, is confusing. As a grammatical exercise, you just have to think of "Ibinili ng babae" almost as an independent clause (in English, _She bought_ could express a complete thought in the context of an ongoing conversation). The first *ng* links the subject (actor/doer) to the verb and subsequent *ng*s are objects of the verb. There really is something to the simplistic rule I gave before. In this particular benefactive sentence structure, think of the noun closest to the verb as the subject. Besides the alternative I already gave, here is another configuration that is a little bit clearer:

*Ibinili ng babae ang kanyang ina ng isda.
*
Again, bring the beneficiary/indirect object (ina) closer to the verb. The noun following ng (babae) is now more clearly the subject of the sentence.

If you are still confused, think of a more direct English translation of the original:

Bought by the woman by the fish for (her/its) mother.

Even in the context of a fable (or in any context), the sentence is still grammatically wrong. However, the initial clause _Bought by the woman..._ could work independently. The proximity of the noun *woman* to the verb does convey a mental image (the woman bought _something_). Nouns after it now function as objects. The preposition *for* marks the indirect object so that leaves *fish* as the direct object. Rearrange the sentence so the indirect object is closer to the verb:

*Bought by the woman for her mother, a fish.* (Ibinili ng babae ang kanyang ina ng isda.)

That sentence is now much clearer, but still not ideal. As before, the most direct and clearest sentence is an actor-focused (or active voiced) one:

*The woman bought fish for her mother. / She bought fish for her mother. / Bumili siya ng isda para sa nanay niya.*

As for your other seemingly cannibalistic fable, the three sentences you presented give two different ideas. Follow the simple rule I gave you --- proximity of a noun to the verb gives it precedence as the subject:

*Iniluto ng baboy ng manok ang baka.* (The cow was cooked a chicken by the pig = The pig cooked a chicken for the cow.)

*Iniluto ng manok ng baboy ang baka.* (The cow was cooked a pig by the chicken = The chicken cooked a pig for the cow.)

*Ang baka ay iniluto ng baboy ng manok.* The cow was cooked a chicken by the pig.

If we assume the first sentence as the correct one, then:

Iniluto ng baboy ng manok ang baka. Flip that over so the indirect object is closer to the verb:

*Iniluto ng baboy ang baka ng manok.* Use the prefix *i-* + *pinag-* for greater clarity:

*Ipinagluto ng baboy ang baka ng manok.* The cow was cooked a chicken by the pig.

Finally, once again the actor-focused format would be clearer and preferable:

*Nagluto ang baboy ng manok para sa baka.* The pig cooked a chicken for the cow.

[Needless to say, these sentence structures are far from how people actually speak in real life. I would regard the foregoing sentences as the grammatical exercises that they are and suggest that you move on from there.]


----------



## Inglip

OK thanks. I'll just move on. I guess I can plane the 'ng' and 'ang' in the right place.


----------

