# Mag lambingan kayo ni Coco



## SeeAll1

Hello, I was wondering if someone would be willing to help me translate the following two sentences into English please. This is part of a message from my sister in law to her cousin.


mag lambingan kayo ni coco [Coco is her cousins dog] and sam and Mark lol
Lakad nyo ang aso nyo sa beach



Any help is greatly appreciated, thanks in advance.


----------



## DotterKat

_Lambingan _is normally used in reference to another person to mean any or all of a whole range of _sweet talking_, _caressing_, _snuggling up _or _canoodling with _that other person. In your Tagalog text,_ lambingan _refers both to at least one person (Mark and Sam, if the latter is also a person and not another pet) and the anthropomorphized dog Coco. In this context, human qualities are ascribed to a pet, as pet owners often do, so _lambingan_ takes on an even more benign connotation of playing with, snuggling up or canoodling with a dog in a very innocent manner. However, the addition of Mark at the end (I assume to be the cousin's significant other) and the "lol" is a little wink suggestive of the less than innocent shade of meaning of _lambingan_.


SeeAll1 said:


> ...mag lambingan kayo ni coco [Coco is her cousins dog] and sam and Mark lol
> Lakad nyo ang aso nyo sa beach ...



[Play / snuggle up / canoodle] with Coco and Sam and Mark lol.
Take your dog for a walk on the beach.


----------



## SeeAll1

Thank you for your response. I was quite close to the same translation myself but there is still one concern, the thing that confuses me is the context its being applied in regarding Sam and Mark. You mentioned that it is reference to at least one person and the dog, which I understand. But how would you determine who out of the two people (Sam or Mark) the speaker is referring to exactly? Basically I am trying to determine if the speaker (the sister-in-law) is talking about her cousin exclusively or including herself in that statement? For example, is she is referring to what her cousin can do with Sam, Mark and Coco, or perhaps is she suggesting what they can all do together as a group (provided Sam was the sister's bf), kind of like a group date?

I am unsure who Sam is, and as a result I am confused about the usage of the word "lambingan" in reference to two men and the dog. I can understand how it would work if only one person and the dog were mentioned, but not two people. Is there any way to distinguish whether the speaker is suggesting this idea to just her cousin, or if she is suggesting the two of them do it?


----------



## DotterKat

SeeAll1 said:


> .....I am unsure who Sam is, and as a result I am confused about the usage of the word "lambingan" in reference to two men and the dog. I can understand how it would work if only one person and the dog were mentioned, but not two people. Is there any way to distinguish whether the speaker is suggesting this idea to just her cousin, or if she is suggesting the two of them do it?



The sequential (and grammatically incorrect) usage of the conjunction _and_ in the original text  (... and Sam and  Mark ....)  indicate that the _lambingan_ being suggested was meant to be among four participants (the cousin, Coco, Sam and Mark). This would not be so strange if one considers the possibility that: 1) Sam may be a small child, a member of their family unit (picture the cousin with her significant other Mark, walking the dog Coco on the beach with their child Sam, who by the way could be Samuel or Samantha, among other possibilities) or 2) Sam, as I have suggested before, may be another pet, in which case the_ lambingan_ still encompasses four characters (the cousin, Coco the dog, Mark and the possible mystery pet Sam, which is something other than a dog --- more on that later).

The writer of the Tagalog text, your sister-in-law, does not include herself in the context of the _lambingan_ being proposed. It pertains exclusively to those four characters: the cousin, Coco the dog, the mystery figure Sam and Mark --- it includes all four of them combined. There is no "group dating" evenly remotely implied in this text.

The second sentence (Lakad nyo and aso nyo sa beach or more properly stated: _Ilakad ninyo ang aso ninyo sa beach_) provides essential clues. First, the plural pronoun _ninyo _clearly refers to at least two people who are joint owners of a dog (that would be Coco). The owners of Coco are the cousin _and _Mark _or _the cousin, Mark and Sam taking the possibility that Sam is a child --- and actually Coco might be Sam's dog, let's say a gift from his or her parents (remember Sam could be Samuel or Samantha). Second, the use of the marker _ang _(and no plural marker _mga_) definitively shows that there is only one dog in this equation (that would be Coco once again, since you have provided this information). Thus, whatever or whoever the mysterious Sam may be, he, she or it is not dog. Sam is probably another person, perhaps a young child. Sam could be a cat, taking an independent off-leash walk with the cousin, her significant other Mark and Coco who is probably on a leash. However, my best guess given very limited information is that two adults (the cousin and her significant other Mark) plus their child Sam is taking their dog Coco for a walk on the beach. The easiest way to resolve this is to find out who or what Sam is, and who Mark is in relation to the cousin.

If you want to get more complicated than that, there is no indication of the cousin's gender in your first post. After all, the cousin could be a man or woman partnered with Mark, who together have a child named Sam. Ironically, the one sure thing about this text is that Coco is a dog.


----------



## SeeAll1

I apologize for the confusion if I may clarify a bit further; my sister-in-laws cousin is a woman, she is young and has no children or other pets. Mark is the cousins significant other (boyfriend). This should rule out Sam as being a child or animal, unless of course Sam was Mark's pet (and was not a dog) or possibly his child from another relationship etc., which is why I am under the impression that Sam is another man (or woman). My sister-in-law helps her cousin take care of her dog Coco, and has referred to herself as the "second owner" of the dog before so it is safe to say that she is the joint-owner, not Mark.

You stated that my sister-in-law does not include herself in the first sentence referring to the _lambingan_; so if the sister-in-law and cousin are the joint-owners of Coco, does this change the context of the suggested _lambingan_ to include the sister-in-law now because we know that Mark (or Sam) are not the joint-owner of Coco? (Maybe Sam is my sister-in-laws boyfriend). Or is she just simply referring to the ownership of the dog? Like possibly saying "Take our dog for a walk on the beach and (you can) _lambingan _with Coco and Sam and Mark", or is she trying to say "We'll take our dog for a walk on the beach and (we can) _lambingan _with Coco and Sam and Mark"? As always your time and patience are appreciated.


----------



## DotterKat

I can only tease out meaning from the textual fragment you provided and it absolutely does not indicate that your sister-in-law sees herself as joint owner of Coco, no matter what she may have told you in the past. She used the second person plural pronoun and adjective, effectively excluding herself of this dog's ownership, at least based on the text.

(Corrected text) _Ilakad *ninyo* ang aso *ninyo* sa beach_ --- *You* (second person plural pronoun) take *your* (second person plural possessive adjective) dog for a walk on the beach.

She did _not_ say: _Ilakad* ninyo *ang aso *natin *sa beach _--- *You* (second person plural pronoun) take *our* (first person plural possessive adjective) dog for a walk on the beach.

So no matter what she may have told you, your sister-in-law thinks of Coco as belonging to the household that her cousin occupies which happens to include her (cousin's) boyfriend Mark. Judging from her use of _you_ and _your_ as I explained above, she clearly considers Mark as the co-owner of Coco. Legal ownership being a different matter altogether, it is not unusual for a boyfriend and girlfriend to think of a house pet as "their" pet, no matter who actually bought it. Again, your sister-in-law never indicated anywhere in the text that she even thinks of herself as co-owner of Coco.


SeeAll1 said:


> ...You stated that my sister-in-law does not include herself in the first sentence referring to the _lambingan_; so if the sister-in-law and cousin are the joint-owners of Coco, does this change the context of the suggested _lambingan_ to include the sister-in-law now because we know that Mark (or Sam) are not the joint-owner of Coco? (Maybe Sam is my sister-in-laws boyfriend). Or is she just simply referring to the ownership of the dog? Like possibly saying "Take our dog for a walk on the beach and (you can) _lambingan _with Coco and Sam and Mark", or is she trying to say "We'll take our dog for a walk on the beach and (we can) _lambingan _with Coco and Sam and Mark"? ...



If Sam were an adult male, it would be bizarre to even consider him as your sister-in-law's boyfriend. She would not say this to anyone, let alone her cousin in reference to her (sister-in-law's) boyfriend:

Snuggle up with Coco (the dog), Sam (my boyfriend) and Mark (your boyfriend).

That simply does not make sense considering the tone of the text, which strikes me as innocent and quite lighthearted. Granted, there may be a possibility of an underlying private joke being told to which only the interlocuteurs are privy but I find that unlikely. To me, the text is quite innocent --- _Go and snuggle up with your dog Coco, Sam and Mark. Take Coco out for a walk on the beach._

Your sister-in-law in no way incudes herself in this text, neither as co-owner of Coco nor as the lover of anyone. In fact, I only know she is the cousin of the interlocuteur because you said so. I still think Sam is part of the familial unit comprised of the cousin, the boyfriend Mark and their dog Coco. I still suspect Sam is a young child. Barring some truly bizzare ménage à quatre, Sam is not an adult male who is your sister-in-law's boyfriend. The tone of the text is too simple and lighthearted to even hint at an entanglement as sophisticated as that.

Further progress will only be possible with additional information. Identify Sam.


----------



## SeeAll1

DotterKat said:


> ..So no matter what she may have told you,  your sister-in-law thinks of Coco as belonging to the household that her  cousin occupies which happens to include her (cousin's) boyfriend Mark.  Judging from her use of _you_ and _your_ as I explained  above, she clearly considers Mark as the co-owner of Coco... Again, your  sister-in-law never indicated anywhere in the text that she even thinks  of herself as co-owner of Coco.



I confirmed with my wife that Coco is owned exclusively by the  cousin and my sister-in-law, they purchased the dog together and are  caring for it together as well (they live with each other if that helps  at all). I also inquired if the cousins boyfriend (Mark) had a child and whether he was considered another owner of the dog, the answer was no to both of these questions. I find it odd the sister-in-law refers to Mark as an  owner of the dog when she herself has said (outside of the text I  provided) that she and her cousin are the exclusive owners, its also a  consensus of opinion amongst family members including my wife that the  cousin and sister-in-law are the only co-owners. I'm considering it a possibility that maybe my sister-in-law and her cousin "unofficially" include Mark as an owner of the dog because he is dating the cousin?

From the  information I presented above let's infer that my sister-in-law and her  cousin are the only owners of Coco (despite her not stating that in the  original text I provided) and that Mark, is not an owner in any shape or  form (legally or mutually). My sister-in-law and cousin reside together  in the same household and Mark does not live with them. We now know  that 1) My sister-in-law occupies the same household as her cousin, 2)  Mark doesn't live with them and is not a co-owner of the dog, 3) Mark has no children.

If I compare this information to your analysis of the context of the sentences I provided, it seems things do not add up at all as far as what my sister-in-law is trying to say (or again im misinterpreting it). If you'd bare with me there is a bit more below



DotterKat said:


> Further progress will only be possible with additional information. Identify Sam.



I included a bit more of the original conversation, including a "correction" to one of the sentences I provided in my original message.

Cousin: Because I was trying on stuff (explaining why she couldn't reply immediately to the sister-in-law)
Cousin: Baka dumating si Mark sa lunes
*--Original Texts in response to the above--*
Sister-in-law: Oh lol mag lambingan kayo ni tofu and sam and mark lol (You'll notice the "_oh lol_" in the beginning of this sentence was excluded in my original post, I apologize)
Sister-in-law: Lakad nyo ang aso nyo sa beach

As  you can tell from what the cousin was saying is that she indicated she  was trying on clothing and was unable to reply immediately to my  sister-in-law. Furthermore she includes that "_Mark might come on Monday_"  which could potentially be the reason she is trying on new clothing  (and wants to look nice etc.), which leads the reader to believe her  cousin expects a date of some type (also because we know Mark is her bf)  on Monday.

As far as the mysterious Sam goes I am still unsure  as to who he or she is, but I do know he is not Marks child. Clearly though my sister-in-law knows who Sam is  because she associates him with Mark, once Mark has been mentioned. I hope the above information I provided can be of some use to narrow down context of this conversation.


----------



## DotterKat

Explanation sent by PM.


----------

