# Affixes



## iggyca

I've been looking around the internet for a list of tagalog affixes/ suffixes and the meanings with no luck. Can someone help out or maybe start a list on here. 

For example

Makapag - Able to ...
Napaka - very...
Pinaka - most...


----------



## niernier

Here is a list of some of the affixes unrelated to verb tenses. 

 (naka + root word) - express the state, condition or appearance of a person or thing based on the root. 

 (taga + name of place) - means a native or resident of

 (taga + root) - refers to one who frequently acts the root

 (ma + root) - means having the quality expressed by the root

 (ka + root) - refers to a reciprocal relationship

 (root + an) - refers to 1) a place where things are stored or placed, 2) a season or 3) an instrument

 (root duplicated and hyphenated + an ) - refers to a 1) miniature version, 2) an imitator or copycat

 (tala + root + an) - refers to a list of things associated with the root

 (ka + root + an) - refers to 1) an idea, concept or 2) a group

 (pang/pam + root) - refers to the instrument used for performing what the root word denotes


----------



## Waterdash

Hey, so if I said tagakain, would that refer to someone who eats frequently?


----------



## niernier

Waterdash said:


> Hey, so if I said tagakain, would that refer to someone who eats frequently?



Waterdash, tagakain is more like of a job occupation, so hmm...yes I think my definition still applies. 

http://www.bobongbooks.com/scripts/smf/index.php?action=printpage;topic=1455.0

Look for the one that says "tagakain". He is basically saying that eating is what he does in their house 'frequently'.


----------



## iggyca

Sorry for the late reply, my computer was down for a while. I appreciate your help very much.

couple questions.

Tagabiro - Someone who jokes, or some one people make jokes about frequently? 
TagaInip - someone always bored?


----------



## niernier

I guess, there is some confusion on the way I described this affix. What I really mean for the taga- prefix is that there is frequency of action such that it becomes one's function, or role in a certain environment or context.

There is no such word as taga-inip....
But there is tagapagbiro/tagapagpatawa(someone who makes you laugh)


----------



## iggyca

I wasn't to sure if I should start a new thread for this but I have a few more I would like to learn about.

Pinag- Is it the past tense of pag?

Nakaka- I understand what Naka does as explained above. What exactly does the extra ka do? does it change the tense of the word to future or past? As well as the following...

papa-balot
makakapagsabi
mapag-
kamag-
nagka-


----------



## niernier

*nakaka-* in front of a root word means, "it causes". Examples of usage are:

nakakamatay = can cause to die = fatal
nakakainis = can cause to irritate = irritating
nakakainlove = can cause to fall in love.

Nakakainlove ka talaga. = You make me fall in love = Your so lovable.

Depending on the root, it also serves to form the abilitative. For example, 

Nakakalakad na siyang muli. = He can now walk again.

*mapag-,* is the same as ma-, means having the quality expressed by the root, the difference being that mapag- accepts verbs as the root.

mapag-aruga = caring
mapagmahal = loving
mapag-alipusta = overbearing
*
kamag-* is also the same as ka-, denoting a reciprocal relationship. 

kamag-aral = classmate (kaklase also mean classmate)
kamag-anak = relative

*nagka-* is short for nagkarooon which means to acquire the root

Nagkagirlfriend ka na ba? =  Have you ever had a girlfriend?
Nagkasakit ako kahapon = I got sick yesterday

As for papabalot, I think that should be magpapabalot. It means to have someone wrap something. *Nagpa-* which is in past tense is used to affix a verb when a person asked someone to do something for him. *Nagpapa-* is in present tense.

Ex.

Magpapabili ako ng pagkain. = I'll have my food bought. (by someone)
Nagpapabili ako  ng pagkain = I am having my food bought. (by someone)
Nagpabili ako ng pagkain = I had my food bought. (by someone)

*nakapag-, nakakapag-, and makakapag-* means to have the chance or opportunity to do the root. Nakapag- is past, nakakapag- is in present tense and makakapag- is future tense.

Nakapag-aral ka ba kagabi? = Have you had the chance to study last night? or Were you able to study last night?

Panahon lang ang makakapagsabi.. = Only time can tell..


----------



## iggyca

*nakaka-*  also I've seen makaka- is it the future tense? As in will cause?
*
nakakasawa sa aking na traffic ito* - 
This traffic is too much for me (Causes the feeling of being fed up)
*
nakakainlove siya sa kanya - *
She makes him fall in love
*
nakakasaya na magandang araw ito sa *akin -*
This beautiful day makes *me happy. 
*akin, kanya, inyo, ninyo (would these be correct?)

As for abilitive, does makapag- also work the same way?

*makapaglakad na siyang muli*.
*
mapag*
so the way i understand this. If it is a verb it would be to be fond of that verb...

*mapag-aruga *- fond of taking care (mapag-aruga siya sa lahat ang tao)
*mapag-mahal* - fond of love (mapag-mahal ako sa inyo) 
*mapag-alipusta* - fond of ridiculing/insulting (mapag-alipusta ka talaga)

these two i am not to sure of because of the -an that is added to the end.
*mapagiiwanan* - always leaving?
*mapagaralan - *fond of studying?
*
nagka-* Short for Nagkaroon which would be past tense for Magkaroon or Mayroon. Correct? Is there any for future tense?


----------



## rockjon

magkaroon is the verb to have in Tagalog.  The magkaroon is conjugated just like any of the mag- verbs

Past
Nagkaroon
Nagka-(shortened form)

Present
Nagkakaroon
Nagkaka-(shortened form)

Future
Magkakaroon
Magkaka-(shortened form)


----------



## rockjon

Iggyca, the mapag- affix that niernier is referring to is a type of adjective. The mapagiiwanan and mapagaralan that's confusing you are actually verbs. However, the mapag- in those two verbs are actually the abilitative conjugation form of pag- -an verbs.

Ex:
pinag-aralan ko 'yon. I studied it.
napagaralan ko ang kasaysayan. I was able to study history.


----------



## niernier

*makaka-* in the future tense only serves as a form of the abilitative.

For example:

Makakakita ka na ulit pagkatapos ng operasyon. -> You will be able to see again after the operation.

*makakapag-* also works the same way. So Makakapaglakad/makakalakad na siyang muli are just the same. But you can't say makakapagkita. It cannot conjugate that way.



> nakakasawa sa aking na traffic ito -
> This traffic is too much for me (Causes the feeling of being fed up)


Some extreme adjectives I can suggest are, badtrip, irita and bwisit.

Nakakabadtrip/Nakakairita/Nakakabwisit na ang trapik na 'to.

Well, you can also say "Nakakasawa na ang trapik na 'to". But usually, traffic jams are either, nakakabadtrip, nakakairita, or nakakabwisit.

When forming the *nakaka-* , it is understood that it is used for the first person pronoun, so "sa akin" need not be said.



> nakakainlove siya sa kanya -
> She makes him fall in love


"Naiinlove na siya sa kanya" sounds better. But this would be translated as "He is falling in love with her." Nakaka- is best used only for the first person.



> nakakasaya na magandang araw ito sa *akin -
> This beautiful day makes *me happy.
> *akin, kanya, inyo, ninyo (would these be correct?)


Although its opposite, lungkot(sad) can conjugate to the nakaka- form, the causative form of saya is a little different, it's nakakapagpasaya. 

Ex.
Nakakalungkot ang araw na 'to. -> This day makes me sad. (You can say this probably after hearing bad news)

Nakakasaya is wrong. It sounds stilted, so instead, you should say "Nakakapagpasaya sa akin ang araw na 'to" if you mean "This day makes me happy." 

Tanging ikaw lang ang makakapagpasaya sa akin. = Only you can make me happy.

Pinapasaya mo ako. -> You make me happy.

I think there's no future or past tense for the causative form, nakaka-, because it's on the neutral. By the way, don't think that the translation is always "makes one ___". To illustrate, consider the sentence:

Nakakamatay ang halamang ito. -> This plant is poisonous/deadly. (causes death)



> mapag
> so the way i understand this. If it is a verb it would be to be fond of that verb...
> 
> mapag-aruga - fond of taking care (mapag-aruga siya sa lahat ang tao)
> mapag-mahal - fond of love (mapag-mahal ako sa inyo)
> mapag-alipusta - fond of ridiculing/insulting (mapag-alipusta ka talaga)


Thumbs up. Those are also good Tagalog sentences.



> these two i am not to sure of because of the -an that is added to the end.
> mapagiiwanan - always leaving?
> mapagaralan - fond of studying?


I'm actually on my wits end, but thanks to rockjon, this one has been taken cared of. I can tell he's also good in Tagalog.



> nagka- Short for Nagkaroon which would be past tense for Magkaroon or Mayroon. Correct? Is there any for future tense?


Good thinking. Yes, there is. *nagka-, nagkaka-, and magkaka- *are the past, present and future tenses respectively. 

For example:

Nagkakasakit ang mga bata dahil sa malamig na panahon. -> The children are getting sick because of the cold weather.

Magkakabahay na kami sa susunod na buwan. -> We will have our own house the next month.


----------



## iggyca

Thank you very much Niernier and Rockjon.

For the Mapag- prefix. Which of these two would this be correct?

Napagmahalan ko siya kahit hindi mapag-mahal siya. (I was able to love her even though she isnt loving)

or...

nakapagmahal ko siya kahit hindi mapag-mahal siya. 

not sure if mahal is a pag- -an verb. If not, 

Nakapagaral - able to study (past)
napagaralan - able to study (past)

-------

For Nakaka- it is best to use in the first person. understood. If you were referencing others would these be correct?

nabibwisit na siya sa trapik na ito. (he/she is being annoyed by this traffic)

naiiyak ka ang sota mo. ( your boyfriend is making you cry)

naiinis ba ako sa iyo? (Am I annoying you?)

--------
Pinapasaya mo ako. -> You make me happy.

to break this down. Pina- is the prefix meaning "to make" and adding pa- makes it " to be happy" 

Would this work as well?

"Pinapasaya sa akin ang araw 'to" (This day makes me happy)

 "Nakakapagpasaya sa akin ang araw na 'to" (This day is able to make me happy)


----------



## rockjon

Pinapasaya mo ako. -> You make me happy.
Tagalog has a verbal conjugation form pa- -in which is completely different then the -ipa forms. Pa- -in typically means to make some someone do the what the verb root indicates. 

Ex:
Pinalungkot (Palungkutin)ko siya. I made her sad. Lungkot is the word for sad.
Pinaalis (Paalisin) ko yung masamang lalaki.  I made the bad man leave.  
Wag mo siyang pabalikin. Do not allow him to return/comeback.  
Pinauwi (Pauwiin) ko siya kasi may sakit. I made her go home because she's sick.  

To be honest, I'm still confused myself by all these conjugation forms but i think this is what the pa- -in conjugation form typically means.   

"to break this down. Pina- is the prefix meaning "to make" and adding pa- makes it " to be happy"

The pina and the pa is just the present tense form of the pa- -in conjugation eg pinapaalis. The past tense would just be the pina- eg. pinaalis.  The future tense would be pa + the first syllable reduplicated eg. paaalisin.


----------



## niernier

iggyca said:


> For Nakaka- it is best to use in the first person. understood. If you were referencing others would these be correct?
> 
> nabibwisit na siya sa trapik na ito. (he/she is being annoyed by this traffic)
> 
> naiiyak ka ang sota mo. ( your boyfriend is making you cry)
> 
> naiinis ba ako sa iyo? (Am I annoying you?)
> You had it the other way around. This Tagalog sentence means, "Am I annoyed by you?"


Pinaiiyak ka lang ng syota mo. = Your boyfriend is making you cry.

Note: Syota is short for short time, so unless you are looking for a mate for life, don't call your partner syota. It means "fling".

Naiinis ka na ba sa akin? = Am I annoying you? (literally, Are you annoyed of me?)

Another way of asking this in Filipino, depending on the situation is, "Naiistorbo ba kita?" which means, "Am I disturbing you?"

Additionally, use nakaka- only for expressing what you feel or when describing something. Don't force it to describe what others feel.


----------



## niernier

iggyca said:


> For the Mapag- prefix. Which of these two would this be correct?
> 
> Napagmahalan ko siya kahit hindi mapag-mahal siya. (I was able to love her even though she isnt loving)
> 
> or...
> 
> nakapagmahal ko siya kahit hindi mapag-mahal siya.
> 
> not sure if mahal is a pag- -an verb. If not,
> 
> Nakapagaral - able to study (past)
> napagaralan - able to study (past)



mahal can conjugate to pagmamahalan which means "loving relationship" (a noun) but it cannot be used like a pag- -an verb. 

If you mean, "I love her even though she does not love me", in that case, the Tagalog translation is:

"Mahal ko siya kahit hindi niya ako mahal."

mapagmahal is used only as an adjective just like the other mapag- adjectives. For example, "mapagmahal kang asawa" means "You are a loving husband/wife"

Nakapagmahal means to have the chance to love. 

To use it in a sentence, for example:

Nakapagmahal ka na ba ng tunay? -> Have you ever truly loved someone before?


----------



## niernier

iggyca said:


> Pinapasaya mo ako. -> You make me happy.
> 
> to break this down. Pina- is the prefix meaning "to make" and adding pa- makes it " to be happy"
> 
> Would this work as well?
> 
> "Pinapasaya sa akin ang araw 'to" (This day makes me happy)
> Pinapasaya ako ng araw na 'to. But this unnatural to say.
> 
> "Nakakapagpasaya sa akin ang araw na 'to" (This day is able to make me happy)



For me, the most natural way of saying this is "Nasisiyahan ako sa araw na 'to" or "Masaya ako sa araw na 'to".


----------



## iggyca

rockjon said:


> Ex:
> Pinalungkot (Palungkutin)ko siya. I made her sad. Lungkot is the word for sad.
> Pinaalis (Paalisin) ko yung masamang lalaki.  I made the bad man leave.
> Wag mo siyang pabalikin. Do not allow him to return/comeback.
> Pinauwi (Pauwiin) ko siya kasi may sakit. I made her go home because she's sick.
> 
> --
> 
> The pina and the pa is just the present tense form of the pa- -in conjugation eg pinapaalis. The past tense would just be the pina- eg. pinaalis.  The future tense would be pa + the first syllable reduplicated eg. paaalisin.



Ah I see... the tenses would be similar to say -in- -um- words. 
About the words inside the brackets. Although they are not in the pinapa- form would you read those as they were pressent?

(Palungkutin)ko siya. I am making her sad. 
(Paalisin) ko yung masamang lalaki.  I am making the bad man leave.  
(Pauwiin) ko siya kasi may sakit. I am making her go home because she's sick.


----------



## iggyca

niernier said:


> For me, the most natural way of saying this is "Nasisiyahan ako sa araw na 'to" or "Masaya ako sa araw na 'to".



Yeah that actually makes more sense. All im doing is making a simple sentence much more confusing(for me). Although now that I know how it works I'll be able to understand it more and in what situations they should be used. Maraming salamat po.


----------



## iggyca

I am a little confused with the magpapa- in this situation. 

"sabi niya laro daw kayo..di daw siya mag papatalo"

I dont think the having someone get or allowing someone rule applies. So would it be cause?

-He says you guys should play.. He won't lose he says.


----------



## rockjon

iggyca said:


> Ah I see... the tenses would be similar to say -in- -um- words.
> About the words inside the brackets. Although they are not in the pinapa- form would you read those as they were pressent?
> 
> (Palungkutin)ko siya. I am making her sad.
> (Paalisin) ko yung masamang lalaki.  I am making the bad man leave.
> (Pauwiin) ko siya kasi may sakit. I am making her go home because she's sick.



The words with brackets are the infinitive form of the verb before its conjugated. If used by itself, 

I put the words in the infinitive form so you can see what they look like before they are conjugated into the past, present, or future tense.  

Ex:
mag-dala (infinitive)
nag-dala (past)
nag-dadala (present)
mag-dadala (future)

Technically, the infinitive form means it means to x something (depending on the root word). eg. kumain = to eat, mag-dala = to bring, etc.

Ex:
Tinulungan niya akong magdala ng mabibigat sa bahay ko.  He helped me bring the heavy things to my house.

To answer your question, Filipino verbal conjugation forms are used slightly differently from English verbal conjugations.  I've seen that infinitive form used for commands.  eg. Buksan mo ang pinto/pintuan. Open the door.  There are times when confusion sets in what is the proper conjugation to use.  For instance, if you want to ask where you are going in Tagalog, it would be translated out to saan ka pupunta? In english, the conjugation you are using is the present tense but in Tagalog it's translated into the future tense. However, even I'm still confused sometimes which is the proper conjugation.


----------



## niernier

iggyca said:


> I am a little confused with the magpapa- in this situation.
> 
> "sabi niya laro daw kayo..di daw siya mag papatalo"
> 
> I dont think the having someone get or allowing someone rule applies. So would it be cause?
> 
> -He says you guys should play.. He won't lose he says.



If you are to examine or rephrase your translation literally, having someone get or allowing someone rule applies.

magpapatalo ako = to have yourself defeated by someone

hindi ako magpapatalo = to not allow yourself be defeated by someone

'Di daw siya magpapatalo = "He said he won't allow himself to be defeated by someone." Or in short, "He won't lose, he says."


----------



## iggyca

rockjon said:


> The words with brackets are the infinitive form of the verb before its conjugated. If used by itself,
> 
> I put the words in the infinitive form so you can see what they look like before they are conjugated into the past, present, or future tense.
> 
> Ex:
> mag-dala (infinitive)
> nag-dala (past)
> nag-dadala (present)
> mag-dadala (future)
> 
> Technically, the infinitive form means it means to x something (depending on the root word). eg. kumain = to eat, mag-dala = to bring, etc.
> 
> Ex:
> Tinulungan niya akong magdala ng mabibigat sa bahay ko.  He helped me bring the heavy things to my house.
> 
> To answer your question, Filipino verbal conjugation forms are used slightly differently from English verbal conjugations.  I've seen that infinitive form used for commands.  eg. Buksan mo ang pinto/pintuan. Open the door.  There are times when confusion sets in what is the proper conjugation to use.  For instance, if you want to ask where you are going in Tagalog, it would be translated out to saan ka pupunta? In english, the conjugation you are using is the present tense but in Tagalog it's translated into the future tense. However, even I'm still confused sometimes which is the proper conjugation.



Yes that is one of the biggest problems I am having at the moment other than -an. Like I mentioned earlier, its all in experiencing the words and the situations they are used in. I will continue on.


----------



## iggyca

niernier said:


> If you are to examine or rephrase your translation literally, having someone get or allowing someone rule applies.
> 
> magpapatalo ako = to have yourself defeated by someone
> 
> hindi ako magpapatalo = to not allow yourself be defeated by someone
> 
> 'Di daw siya magpapatalo = "He said he won't allow himself to be defeated by someone." Or in short, "He won't lose, he says."



Haha yes, that still does apply. I was going off the papabalot example and thinking have someone defeat FOR you. But yes that does make perfect sense.


----------



## Equinozio

Comprehensive alphabetical lists of Tagalog noun affixes, verb affixes and adjective affixes:

learningtagalog.com/grammar/2_26_noun_affixes.html
learningtagalog.com/grammar/2_32_verb_affixes.html
learningtagalog.com/grammar/2_45_adjective_affixes.html


----------



## iggyca

Equinozio said:


> Comprehensive alphabetical lists of Tagalog noun affixes, verb affixes and adjective affixes:
> 
> learningtagalog.com/grammar/2_26_noun_affixes.html
> learningtagalog.com/grammar/2_32_verb_affixes.html
> learningtagalog.com/grammar/2_45_adjective_affixes.html



thank you very much. That is a big help


----------



## DotterKat

Notice the subtle differences between the two sentences below and you will get an idea of what the _"magpapa-"  _affix is all about.
*
He won't lose *- _Hindi siya matatalo._

*He won't allow himself to lose *_- Hindi siya magpapatalo. _(In the sense of not allowing or permitting something to happen.)


----------



## Equinozio

iggyca said:


> thank you very much. That is a big help



You're welcome! 

Here are some more I found:

learningtagalog.com/grammar/3_31_equality.html
learningtagalog.com/grammar/3_32_inequality.html
learningtagalog.com/grammar/3_33_superlative.html
learningtagalog.com/grammar/4_160_group_2_followed_by_the_root.html
learningtagalog.com/grammar/3_18_requests.html


----------



## Ajura

The main difference between the so called northern tagalog or Manilenyo and the southern tagalog aka Kumintang is that Manilenyo is a pidgin/creole composed of Kumintang words and has many words from Spanish, Ilokano and neighboring idioms although both languages have a continuum and transitional dialects...


----------



## kman1

Oh my!  I am glad I found this thread!  I hope someone can finally answer my question.  Ok, I have written about this on multiple language forums on the web but NO-ONE has been able to answer my question so far about filipino verbs in general.  Tagalog but also Ilocano and Bisaya.  In the past, I usually write a lot about my problem and I might copy and paste what I've inquired about here later but I will write it simply now.  

How does a student know which affix goes with which verb?  Seemingly very easy question but I haven't met a pilipino in 3 years that has been able to answer this question with a solid no bullcrap definitive answer authoritatively.  So, for example: 

Let's say, I look up the word 'to write' in my dictionary.  The root word is 'sulat' and to use it in a sentence you add affixes to it.  As everyone here knows there are a ton of possible affixes in Tagalog AND not every affix goes with every verb.  Certain verbs take certain affixes.  So, I know that I can say 'sumulat' and 'magsulat' but I only know this because I have heard it used that way before.  But how does one know what affixes a root can take?  I have yet to see a paper or online dictionary that lists this.  I don't want to write too much but please what is the answer?  

The only solution I can think of is that there is a set of rules that I need to get from someone who has them OR there are dictionaries that explicitly state which affixes every single root in the Tagalog language can take and the corresponding meaning. 

I have heard of three paper dictionaries that are supposed to be THE definitive source on Tagalog-English dictionaries.  They are José V. PANGANIBAN's (1972), Vito C. SANTOS's (1978), and Leo J. ENGLISH's (1986).  Do you all know if these or any one of these dictionaries indicate explicitly and clearly what affixes every single root can take in Tagalog?  If so, then I can purchase the dictionaries and I can finally start really learning Tagalog.  I would then only need to find the equivalent dictionary that does the exact same thing with Bisaya and Ilocano.  (My wife speaks fluent Bisaya, Ilocano, and Tagalog naturally)

#2. (minor question) 
This question isn't as important as the first one above but should be easy to answer.  What is the best book that explains what every single affix in Tagalog means clearly?  And the equivalent for Bisaya and Ilocano, if possible.  You see, if I have the dictionaries that tell me what affixes every single root can take AND I have a book that tells me what every single affix means then I will be able to tackle anything I encounter.  Mahalo!


----------



## Equinozio

As you probably already know, affixes can be divided into two categories–major affixes and derived affixes. There is no general set of rules for determining which major affixes go with which roots. But once you know the major affix(es) a root can take, you can usually determine the derived affixes. The rules are rather complex though, but if you would like to study them, look for Tagalog Reference Grammar by Schachter and Otanes. The book also contains a comprehensive (but not exhaustive) inventory of affixes.

You might also be interested in the following online resource:
Tagalog Verb Affixes
It's not as comprehensive as Schachter and Otanes, but it lists the most common verb affixes used in everyday Tagalog.

I don't know of any dictionaries or resources that indicate explicitly and clearly what affixes every single root can take.


----------



## kman1

> But once you know the major affix(es) a root can take, you can usually determine the derived affixes.


But how do I determine what major affix(es) go with every root?  I just want to know what it is that teachers teach their language students regarding this for once and for all.  Like I said, I'm studying Ilocano and Bisaya as well so I am sure that whatever they prescribe applies to those two languages as well.  As far as I know, there is no book like the "Tagalog Reference Grammar" for Ilocano and Bisaya so... 


> I don't know of any dictionaries or resources that indicate explicitly and clearly what affixes every single root can take.


Do you know the dictionaries that I listed in my post?  I haven't seen them myself but I'm wondering if they might list it...

But a part of me is telling that it is simply a matter of imitating what I hear because you stated that "IF I would like to study them" which indicates to me that this isn't what non-native learners of any Pilipino languages normally do at all.


----------



## Equinozio

The major affix(es) (and some derived affixes) should be in good dictionaries. I just cannot guarantee that all of them will be listed. If you look up the root _sulat_, a good dictionary, such as L. English's and Vito C. Santos', should give you some verbs, such as _sumulat, magsulat, isulat_ and _sulatan_.

Unfortunately, there is no rule with which you can deduce that a word should or should not exist. It's simply part of learning the vocabulary of the language. But it does help to know what the roots and affixes mean by themselves.

It's like in English. Some words can take the suffix _-less_, like _harmless__, fearless, helpless_ etc. I'm not aware of any rule that would give you a list of such words. Likewise, there is no simple rule that would give you words with _help_ in them. You have _helpless, helpful, helper_ etc.

I personally think that it's not very useful to learn the complex rules in Tagalog Reference Grammar by heart. To learn to speak spontaneously, it may be more effective to know how to use the most common verbs in sentences. As you become familiar with those common verbs, you'll pick up the patterns for other verbs. That is, you'll recognize which part is the root and which part is the affix. Then you can figure out what they mean when they are combined.


----------



## kman1

Equinozio said:


> It's like in English. Some words can take the suffix _-less_, like _harmless__, fearless, helpless_ etc. I'm not aware of any rule that would give you a list of such words. Likewise, there is no simple rule that would give you words with _help_ in them. You have _helpless, helpful, helper_ etc.


No, it's not like in English.  The examples you list above are NOT verbs.  This is key because every single one of those examples you list above ARE in any good English dictionary but the different affixes that a single root can take in Pilipino languages are NOT listed.  They probably should be but they are not.  This is one of the things I HATE about learning Pilipino languages.  The Pilipino lexicographers didn't forsee that this would be a problem for future students?    And the crazy thing is if there is no authoritative text outlining the specific clear use of verbs, then how is it decided what meaning different roots with certain affixes are assigned?  I could hypothetically take a random verb and assign an "incorrect" affix to it.  A native speaker could tell me 'no, that's not correct' but I could challenge him and say prove it.  What document do you have to back that claim up with.  What would the native speaker say?  This goes for Ilocano/Bisaya also and all Pilipino languages.  This does not apply to English though because we have CLEAR guidelines for how to use our verbs.  Now when it comes to common use then that's another story but our grammar rules are pretty clear, I think. 

But on the other hand, I guess no better learning materials have emerged because no-one really gives a crap about learning Pilipino languages.  Much to my chagrin unfortunately since I am encountering this same problem with learning Cebuano and Ilocano.


----------



## Equinozio

First of all, I admire you for wanting to and having started to learn Tagalog, Bisaya and Ilocano, despite the lack of resources.



> No, it's not like in English.


Of course it's not like in English in every way. I just said it's like in English in that there are no rules that will determine affix-root combinations. Just as there is no rule for determining that _unhelpful_ exists but not _dishelpful_, there is no rule for determining that _kumain_ exists but not _magkain_. That's all I wanted to illustrate, as I thought you wanted to know whether there were any rules.

I also find it a pity that not all verbs are listed in dictionaries. I can imagine how discouraging it can be, even for native speakers. But I can understand why it would be very difficult (or impractical) for lexicographers to include all verbs in dictionaries, as there are so many affixes. There isn't even a complete list of them available yet. I don't know whether it's because of a lack of research, funding or initiative.

In any case, I don't see this as a reason to prevent people from learning Tagalog. Most of the verbs a beginner or an intermediate learner needs to know will be in L. English's dictionaries, for instance. I just checked _sulat_, and it gave me _isulat, magsulat, magsulatan, manulat, sulatan_ and _sumulat_, as well as adjectives and nouns, such as _nakasulat, kasulatan, pagsulat, pansulat_ and so on. If you ask me, that's more than what a beginner would need to get started with this root. It may not list _ipagsulat, ipansulat_ or _pagsulatin_, for instance. But you can refer to these pages to know what they mean:
ipag- 1, ipang- 1, pag-…-in 1

That is, if _ipagluto_ means _to cook for_, then _ipagsulat_ means _to write for_. If _ipanluto_ means _to use something to cook_, then _ipansulat_ means _to use something to write_. And if _paglutuin_ means _to make someone cook_, then _pagsulatin_ means _to make someone write_.

By the way, to understand what the Point of Departure (POD) (a.k.a. subject, topic, trigger, focus, theme etc.) means, you can read the explanations here:
The POD and the News
Combining the POD and the News
Roles of the POD

I don't know what books, resources or learning methods you've been using to learn Tagalog. But I know that many of them are outdated and just plain wrong in that they try to teach Tagalog using English grammatical concepts and thus give vague explanations about verbs that don't make sense. The authoritative text for Tagalog is without a doubt Schachter and Otanes', but I personally find it too daunting for non-linguists. This online Tagalog grammar resource is much more accessible and clear, and is also up-to-date.

Aloha!


----------



## Ajura

Equinozio said:


> First of all, I admire you for wanting to and having started to learn Tagalog, Bisaya and Ilocano, despite the lack of resources.
> 
> Of course it's not like in English in every way. I just said it's like in English in that there are no rules that will determine affix-root combinations. Just as there is no rule for determining that _unhelpful_ exists but not _dishelpful_, there is no rule for determining that _kumain_ exists but not _magkain_. That's all I wanted to illustrate, as I thought you wanted to know whether there were any rules.
> 
> I also find it a pity that not all verbs are listed in dictionaries. I can imagine how discouraging it can be, even for native speakers. But I can understand why it would be very difficult (or impractical) for lexicographers to include all verbs in dictionaries, as there are so many affixes. There isn't even a complete list of them available yet. I don't know whether it's because of a lack of research, funding or initiative.
> 
> In any case, I don't see this as a reason to prevent people from learning Tagalog. Most of the verbs a beginner or an intermediate learner needs to know will be in L. English's dictionaries, for instance. I just checked _sulat_, and it gave me _isulat, magsulat, magsulatan, manulat, sulatan_ and _sumulat_, as well as adjectives and nouns, such as _nakasulat, kasulatan, pagsulat, pansulat_ and so on. If you ask me, that's more than what a beginner would need to get started with this root. It may not list _ipagsulat, ipansulat_ or _pagsulatin_, for instance. But you can refer to these pages to know what they mean:
> ipag- 1, ipang- 1, pag-…-in 1
> 
> That is, if _ipagluto_ means _to cook for_, then _ipagsulat_ means _to write for_. If _ipanluto_ means _to use something to cook_, then _ipansulat_ means _to use something to write_. And if _paglutuin_ means _to make someone cook_, then _pagsulatin_ means _to make someone write_.
> 
> By the way, to understand what the Point of Departure (POD) (a.k.a. subject, topic, trigger, focus, theme etc.) means, you can read the explanations here:
> The POD and the News
> Combining the POD and the News
> Roles of the POD
> 
> I don't know what books, resources or learning methods you've been using to learn Tagalog. But I know that many of them are outdated and just plain wrong in that they try to teach Tagalog using English grammatical concepts and thus give vague explanations about verbs that don't make sense. The authoritative text for Tagalog is without a doubt Schachter and Otanes', but I personally find it too daunting for non-linguists. This online Tagalog grammar resource is much more accessible and clear, and is also up-to-date.
> 
> Aloha!



They say that Batangas Tagalog is the pure tagalog but the truth is Manila's language is a creole which has words from the other languages in Luzon but it is similar to the language of batangas because it is the major component of that creole. 
Manilenyo is killing the language of batangas and marinduque because of the non-recognition of their existence and being lumped as the language called Tagalog with Manilenyo, before the advent of education the people in batangas and marinduque would never really understand people from Manila and Central Luzon who speak the Manila-Central Luzon creole/Manilenyo.


----------



## kman1

@Equinozio - Great post!  I think you have answered my question perfectly.  My supposition was correct.  Although I didn't write about it, my guess was that there are certain affixes that go with certain roots and that those combinations absolutely HAVE to written down somewhere in some dictionary.  And they are.  I just haven't been using a good dictionary and thus therein lies the ultimate source of my frustration.  The other category of affixes is as you described, the affixes that no matter what root you assign them to, they carry the same meaning and thus that is why the Pilipino lexicographers exclude them from the dictionaries.  Because all a student would need in order to learn those affixes would be a good grammar book that lists their meanings.  

I am so glad you made that post.  I have been stressing out over that for about three years and you are the one and only Pilipino that has ever explained what I need to do in a 100% clear authoritative manner.  I can not thank you enough for that!!   

So, I will now answer my own question that I have been asking every educated Pilipino that I have met for years about this issue.  The question is the same one I posted above regarding how would a student know for what affix a specific root takes and which ones it doesn't.  The answer to that question, as Equinozio so eloquently wrote, is first, the student would have to already know the major affixes by heart.  These are 
A. Active Focus -> -um-, mag-, ma- 
B. Object-Focus -> -in, i-, -an, ma- 
C. Location/Direction-Focus -> -an/-han 
D. Beneficiary-Focus -> ipag-, -an, 
E. Instrumental-Focus -> ipang- 

Those are the major affixes and those are the affixes that don't always carry the same meaning when applied to certain roots.  Once the student knows these and is familiar with them then all the student would have to do when he encounters an unfamiliar verb is look in a GOOD dictionary such as L. English's dictionary and then find the root there.  The dictionary will list all the possible major affixes that that particular root can take as well as possible adjective and noun forms associated with that root.  So if you see 'kumain' listed under the entry for 'kain' but not 'magkain' then you know that 'kain' can not be used with the major affix 'mag-'.  But with the other category of affixes (derived affixes), you don't need the dictionary to tell you which affixes a root can take.  The verb meaning of the root will let you know which derived affixes it can take.  For example: 
https://learningtagalog.com/grammar/4_107_maka_3.html 

The affix described in the link, would not go with the verb root 'kain'.  It would not make any sense, so you know naturally that that derived affix doesn't go with 'kain'.  Simple!  (I hope everything I wrote is right and I'm understanding this correctly) 

I am writing all this here because now that I understand how this all works, my plan is to teach what I have summarized above to all my Pilipino friends who previously, for one reason or another, couldn't fathom the problem that was tormenting me for so so long.  Once again, thank you, Equinozio!!


----------



## niernier

kman1 said:


> So, I will now answer my own question that I have been asking every educated Pilipino that I have met for years about this issue.  The question is the same one I posted above regarding how would a student know for what affix a specific root takes and which ones it doesn't.  The answer to that question, as Equinozio so eloquently wrote, is first, the student would have to already know the major affixes by heart.  These are
> A. Active Focus -> -um-, mag-, ma-
> B. Object-Focus -> -in, i-, -an, ma-
> C. Location/Direction-Focus -> -an/-han
> D. Beneficiary-Focus -> ipag-, -an,
> E. Instrumental-Focus -> ipang-
> 
> Those are the major affixes and those are the affixes that don't always carry the same meaning when applied to certain roots.  Once the student knows these and is familiar with them then all the student would have to do when he encounters an unfamiliar verb is look in a GOOD dictionary such as L. English's dictionary and then find the root there.  The dictionary will list all the possible major affixes that that particular root can take as well as possible adjective and noun forms associated with that root.  So if you see 'kumain' listed under the entry for 'kain' but not 'magkain' then you know that 'kain' can not be used with the major affix 'mag-'.
> 
> 
> But with the other category of affixes (derived affixes), you don't need the dictionary to tell you which affixes a root can take.
> 
> The verb meaning of the root will let you know which derived affixes it can take.  For example:
> https://learningtagalog.com/grammar/4_107_maka_3.html
> 
> The affix described in the link, would not go with the verb root 'kain'.  It would not make any sense, so you know naturally that that derived affix doesn't go with 'kain'.  Simple!  (I hope everything I wrote is right and I'm understanding this correctly)



Oops. If I may chime in, there exists a word, *makakain*. Kain can go with maka-. Because maka- means to experience something, then makakain means to experience eating. Have you "experience" eating balot? ( the notorious duck egg with a nearly developed embryo inside?)

In Tagalog, you can say, "Nakakain ka na ba ng balot?"(past tense) Makes sense right?

Okay, I think what it all boils down to is, one should learn by heart the major affixes, a.k.a. the focus oriented affixes, or the so-called POD (Point of Departure). The other affixes like in the above, maka- have a pattern in the usage. If the affix makes sense when connected with a root, then it's good to go. Sometimes, one has to hear it used, just for once, to learn that this word really exists. 

 By the way, I think that us natives learned the conjugations by looking at the pattern and through experience, we ultimately have in mind a list of the conjugations for a verb which exists for that verb(those that we have encountered). We do not see a word as a root + affixes, but as a whole. Take for example, pulo. It means island. Kapuluan means archipelago or a chain or cluster of islands. So if you encounter a word like, kabahayan, and you know that bahay means house, then kabahayan means a group of houses. Subconsiously, we have in mind that the prefix ka- and the suffix -an would mean aggregating previously individual items. But we really didn't know that we use it that way!


----------



## niernier

Regarding the question, how do you determine which affixes can go with the root, here is my 2 cents.

Tagalog distinguishes between the um and mag verbs. That's a fact. To me, Tagalog is my second language, Bicol being my local and first language so I can at least give you my insight. There is a semantic meaning in a particular Tagalog word that allows you to say for example, conjugate kain to kumain but not to magkain. In my local language? There's nothing like that. All verbs are mag- with a minor exception.


----------



## Equinozio

@Ajura

It's a sad fact that Manila Tagalog is causing other dialects to die out. Do you speak Batangas Tagalog? Or any other dialects of Tagalog (Bulacan, Tayabas, Bataan etc.)? If you do, or if you know a lot about these dialects, perhaps you could start a thread about them? I would be very interested to know the differences in grammar, vocabulary etc. between them.


----------



## Equinozio

@kman1

You're welcome, kman1, and I'm glad to be of help!

That's a great summary you've posted there. I would just like to add a few things.

You're right in that certain affix-root combinations don't exist because they don't make sense.

Here are a couple more examples to illustrate this:

magka- 2 means _to come to have or possess_
So you can say:
magkakotse - to get or come to have a car
But not:
magkaluto - to get or come to have a cooking

ipag- 1 means _to do something for_
So you can say:
ipagluto - to cook for
But not:
ipagkotse - to car for

But, unfortunately, not all affix-root combinations that do make sense exist. For example, *ipagkuha* (to get for) does not exist, but *ikuha* (to get for) does. And *ipagbili** (to buy for) does not exist, but *ibili* (to buy for) does. See i- 2.

* *Ipagbili* meaning _to sell_ does exist. See ipag- 2.

---

According to Schachter and Otanes, the difference between major and derived affixes is that derived affixes can be derived from major affixes. For example, beneficiary-focus verbs can generally be derived by replacing *(-)um-* with *i-*, *mag-* with *ipag-*, and *mang-* with *ipang-*. Location-focus verbs can generally be derived by replacing *ma-* with either *ka-...-an* or *pag-...-an*, *maka-* with *ka-...-an*, *(-)um-* with *pag-...-an*, *mag-* with *pag-...-an*, and *mang* with *pang-...-an*. And ability and involuntary-action verbs can generally be derived by replacing *(-)um-* with *maka-*, *mag-* with *makapag-*, *mang-* with *makapang-*, and *-in* with *ma-*.*

* There are exceptions to these rules. For example, not all *(-)um-* verbs have a corresponding *maka-* verb, e.g. *tumanda* (_to grow old_) exists but *makatanda* doesn't.

As far as I can tell, derived affixes add a specific meaning to the root, so I think your observation that derived affixes carry the same meaning regardless of the root is correct.

---

I'd like to add the following to your list of major affixes: 

A. Actor-focus (AF) -> (-)um-, mag-, ma-, *mang-*
B. Object-focus (OF) -> -in, i-, -an, ma-
C. Direction-focus (DF) -> -an, *-in, pag-...-an*

There are other major affixes but they only occur in a few verbs. For example: *ipag-* (OF), *ipang-* (OF), *maka-* (AF) and *pang-...-an* (DF).

---

Also, it is important to note that not all *ma-* verbs are AF or OF, not all *-in* verbs are OF or DF, and so on. For example, the following types of verbs also occur:

* *-in* AF verbs (e.g. *antukin* - to feel sleepy)
* *i-* beneficiary-focus (BF) verbs (e.g. *ikuha* - to get for)
* *-an* BF verbs (e.g. *tirhan* - to leave something for)
* *pag-...-an* location-focus (LF) verbs (e.g. *pagkainan* - to eat at/in)
* *pag-...-an* referential-focus verbs (e.g. *pag-usapan* - to talk about)

---

Technically, LF, BF and IF verbs are formed with derived affixes. But the affixes on your list for LF, BF and IF verbs are correct. Anyway, the important thing for students is to learn the most common affixes, whether major or derived.

---



> ... my plan is to teach what I have summarized above to all my Pilipino friends who previously, for one reason or another, couldn't fathom the problem that was tormenting me for so so long.


Good idea!  As you probably already know, most Filipinos who are now in their 30s and up studied Tagalog/Pilipino/Filipino using old, outdated grammar books. I didn't learn about the different roles of the subject/topic/POD/focus, verb aspects and so on in grade school and high school. We basically studied Tagalog using English grammatical systems, categories and descriptions. So I think it's great that you're helping them understand not only your problem but also their own language! 

Congratulations for reaching the end of this post!


----------



## Equinozio

@niernier

I'm afraid kman1 is right in that maka- 3 cannot be combined with *kain*. But you are right in that maka- goes with *kain*. It's just a different kind of *maka-*. 

In *Nakakain ka na ba ng balot?*, *makakain* is an ability verb. An ability verb in the completed aspect followed by the enclitic particle *na* means _have/has (ever)..._. That is:
Nakakain ka na ba ng balot? = Have you (ever) eaten balot?
Nakapunta na ako sa Hawaii. = I've been to Hawaii.



> Tagalog distinguishes between the um and mag verbs.


That's also what I learned in school and I wish it was as simple as that, but I'm afraid it's not. Not all verbs fall into either group. For example, *magulat* exists but not *gumulat* or *maggulat*, *paniwalaan* exists but not *pumaniwala* or *magpaniwala*, *sipunin* exists but not *sumipon* or *magsipon*, and so on.



> Sometimes, one has to hear it used, just for once, to learn that this word really exists.


I agree. That's why it's important to get as much exposure to Tagalog as possible.

Thanks for the insight about Bicolano!


----------



## kman1

> Oops. If I may chime in, there exists a word, *makakain*. Kain can go with maka-.





> Okay, I think what it all boils down to is, one should learn by heart the major affixes, a.k.a. the focus oriented affixes, or the so-called POD (Point of Departure). The other affixes like in the above, maka- have a pattern in the usage. If the affix makes sense when connected with a root, then it's good to go. Sometimes, one has to hear it used, just for once, to learn that this word really exists.


You know, when I read the above two posts that you wrote, I was thinking.  First off, that is good point about "makakain".  I think my line of thinking may have been incorrect there but you pretty much agreed with me when you mentioned that if the affix makes sense and you need to hear it or see it being used by native just once to know that the form of root + affix actually exists.  That led me to think some more.  

I was thinking, ok so before I start putting random roots with random affixes that, in my mind, make sense, I need to HEAR or SEE it being used at least once by native speakers.  So, how do I do this?  I could talk to native speakers that I know.  Nah, that would be too annoying to my friends.  Ok, then I thought, "I got it!".  I can use my handy dandy buddy Google.   I thought if I'm not sure if a root goes with a certain affix then all I have to do is search for that root+affix combo on Google.  If Google shows me that combo being used by natives then that is my green light.  I would then know that that combo is ok to use.  The only catch is I would have to translate the context that I found the combo being used in so I can determine how that combo is used.  But I'm not sure if this step is obligatory..  *Can someone clarify this?* 

So, going with above line of thinking, I tried this out to see if it works.  I chose the root 'kain' and the affix 'mag-'.  I chose this because previously I think I saw that someone posted here that the combo 'magkain' does NOT exist.  Well, I turned to my buddy, Google and what did I find?  I did in fact find 'magkain' being used a number of times.  I will list some of the instances below for discussion: 
kung sabi ng leaders nila magkain sila ng tae para mawala kasalanan nila
 namit magkain sang NASI LEMAK... 
antagal naman nilang matapos _magkain
_magandang morning!! kakatapos _mag-kain_!

Another potential problem I forsee with the way I do above is that when reading different combos on Google, how does one know if that combo is intended for whatever target language language I'm focusing on at the moment.  So, in other words, for "magkain" my focus is on Tagalog being that this thread is entitled "Tagalog affixes" but I'm also studying Cebuano and Ilokano at the same time.  Therefore when I apply this logic to those languages how would I know what language the verb combo I found via Google is intended for?  Furthermore, even if heard it being spoken, how would I know what language it's referring to?  Most Pilipinos I know speak three languages.  English, Tagalog, and then the local language of where they grew up.  It was posted here that there is no such combo as "magkain" in Tagalog but yet I found multiple instances of it on Google.  Was it Tagalog or another language?  I don't know but even if a native speakers clarifies that "magkain" is not Tagalog and it is in fact another local pilipino language, that still wouldn't help tagalog language students unless they have a native following them around everyday all day.  hehe. 

But, in light of what Equinozio posted earlier, one could inquire why I just posted all this...  I'm not sure why I posted it either but maybe someone can see where my roaming mind was going with that rambling. hehe.  Because if I'm not mistaken, someone COULD just say, the way you know that 'mag-' doesn't go with 'kain' as far as Tagalog is concerned is first of all, 'mag-' is major affix so any possible combinations of that affix with any verb root is going to be listed in any good Tagalog dictionary such as L. English's dictionary just as Equinozio pointed out.  So, with all that said, I would only need to look up 'kain' in English's dictionary and if "magkain" is not listed then I know for a fact that it is not a possible combo in Tagalog.  

But the derived affixes are a different story which saddens me.  I say this because after Equinozio enlightened me with his views on analyzing root+affix combo I thought I had it down but after I actually found "magkain" via Google then that tells me that the natives who used 'magkain' used it incorrectly on purpose with an intended slang meaning or comical meaning or something like that.  That makes learning this verb+affix combo system THAT much harder. 



> We do not see a word as a root + affixes, but as a whole.


You know that is the approach I take with learning nouns but that doesn't work when one analyzes verbs or adjectives.  You see, the problem, for us (students) as language learners of Tagalog, is when creating sentences to express ourself in the target language, one tries to create sentences based on the patterns that have been learned up to that point.  If one views a verb as a whole instead of analyzing it then they'll never learn the language or learn it very slowly like a child...

Edit: Oh my!!  I just posted this but I did NOT see what you had posted earlier, Equinozio!  I apologize.   I have to step out but I will respond to your post when I return!  It looks like you posted it at three hours ago too.  I'm not sure how I missed it.  Darn it, I have to learn how to type faster!


----------



## kman1

Ok, now I can respond to your great posts that I didn't notice earlier. hehe


> For example, *ipagkuha* (to get for) does not exist


    I found instances of ‘ipagkuha’ on Google. (not many but I did find some): 
  - Dady Az! *ipagkuha *mo naman ako 'pag mas maaga ka o!
  - KAHIT *IPAGKUHA *NG TUBIG AY HINDI SYA PINAPANSIN
  - at the day before nasa grill queen din ako, si Via at Gio, ayoko *ipagkuha *si Via ng water, sabi niya kung si Lance daw yun ipagkukuha ko, sabi ko correction, sya ang kukuha.
  - HAHAHA *ipagkuha *mo nalang ako ng juice 

  And also ‘makatanda’: 
  - ang lakas maka ate ang laks din *makatanda *dada na lang
  - Bobo ako sa daanan. Hindi ako madaling *makatanda *ng mga sakayan. 


> According to Schachter and Otanes, the difference between major and derived affixes is that derived affixes can be derived from major affixes.


    well I prefer not to think of it that way.  I find it easier to just understand them as two separate groups.  Major  AND   Derived.  


> For example, beneficiary-focus verbs can generally be derived by replacing *(-)um-* with *i- *


    So, that means “ i- ” is an affix that is a major affix (Object-focus) AND also a derived affix (beneficiary-focus) <- correct?  
    If that is correct then I guess the context will tell me which meaning is being used. 



> And ability and involuntary-action verbs can generally be derived by replacing *(-)um-* with *maka-*, *mag-* with *makapag-*, *mang-* with *makapang-*, and *-in* with *ma-*.*





> *tumanda* (_to grow old_) exists but *makatanda* doesn't.


  I gave instances of where I saw “makatanda” above but you know, when I first saw what you wrote, I was thinking that ‘makatanda’ wouldn’t make any sense anyway and that is why it doesn’t exist.  (well, I found it on Google.... hmm..)  But what would be the intended meaning of ‘makatanda’?  It wouldn’t be abilitative. (well that is unless you’re referring to Superman, such as ‘he isn’t able to grow old because of his superpowers’  hehe)  So that would mean you were referring to ‘tanda’ not being able to be expressed in the simple present tense using ‘maka-‘.  Is that all right?  (‘to be old’ is expressed ‘matanda’, I think.  ) 


> I'd like to add the following to your list of major affixes:
> 
> A. Actor-focus (AF) -> (-)um-, mag-, ma-, *mang-*
> B. Object-focus (OF) -> -in, i-, -an, ma-
> C. Direction-focus (DF) -> -an, *-in, pag-...-an*
> 
> There are other major affixes but they only occur in a few verbs. For example: *ipag-* (OF), *ipang-* (OF), *maka-* (AF) and *pang-...-an* (DF).


    But, with exception of “mang-“ and “-in”, the affixes that you added are NOT major affixes.  They are derived affixes.  So, I’m confused why you would want me to add them to my list...  Maybe you feel that I should memorize them also.  Personally I emphasize the major affixes because those are the entries that are going to be listed in any GOOD pilipino language dictionary (tagalog but I would presume cebuano & ilocano as well).  Therefore those are the affixes that students would want to keep an eye out for.  This is important because if the student doesn’t see one or two of the major affixes for root that they search for in the dictionary then they know that there is no affix-root combo of that root and the missing affix in the target language (Tagalog, etc.)  As you mentioned, my stance on this is correct but the derived affixes are the ones that I would need to hear once, I guess.  I say “I guess” because I still don’t know how you feel about what I posted in the post above this one regarding finding instances of combos that supposedly don’t exist on Google.  After I read what you feel about that then I’ll be able to better see where I’m going with this hopefully. 


> Also, it is important to note that not all *ma-* verbs are AF or OF, not all *-in* verbs are OF or DF, and so on. For example, the following types of verbs also occur:
> 
> * *-in* AF verbs (e.g. *antukin* - to feel sleepy)
> * *i-* beneficiary-focus (BF) verbs (e.g. *ikuha* - to get for)
> * *-an* BF verbs (e.g. *tirhan* - to leave something for)
> * *pag-...-an* location-focus (LF) verbs (e.g. *pagkainan* - to eat at/in)
> * *pag-...-an* referential-focus verbs (e.g. *pag-usapan* - to talk about)


    So, regarding ‘*antukin*’, you mention this so that I won’t mistakenly always use an OF pronoun EVERYTIME I see ‘-in’ which is what I thought will be ALWAYS be OF or DF depending on the context. <- correct? 

  If what I wrote above is correct, then the same logic applies with the other examples you wrote ‘ikuha’, ‘tirhan’, ‘pag-usapan’, etc., right?  

  but how will I know this?  I’m glad you informed me of this but will the dictionary list this as well?  I don’t own a copy of L. English’s dictionary or any other good one so I hope you don’t mind checking for me.  If the dictionary doesn’t list these exceptions (hmm.. are these considered exceptions??), then I how would I know?  I would still say “antukin ko” instead of “antukin ako” and the same for the other examples etc. 


> Congratulations for reaching the end of this post!


    Yeah, I thought it was the end but lo and behold.  


> An ability verb in the completed aspect followed by the enclitic particle *na* means _have/has (ever)..._.


  hmm, that’s interesting that you describe that as a grammar pattern.  And I say interesting because most people I’ve spoken with just translate the sentence but don’t know about grammar patterns.  So, does this Schachter and Otanes book you recommend list all grammar patterns in Tagalog as well?  


> *magulat* exists but not *gumulat* or *maggulat *


    gumulat: 
  ANG TRADE REVELATION NA ITO NI ALVAREZ AY _GUMULAT_ SA MARAMI LALO PAT MARAMI ANG UMAASA NA ISA SA MGA TOP OFF GUARDS NG GINEBRA TULAD NINA CYRUS BAGUIO
  at kung habang nagbibilang ka ng asin ay merong luko-luko na gumulat sau...

  maggulat: 
  Ayaw niyang _maggulat_ ng bagong gising 


> *paniwalaan* exists but not *pumaniwala* or *magpaniwala*


    pumaniwala: 
  Nothing showed up on Google so maybe it really doesn’t exist!  Finally, one that we all can agree on! hehe 

  magpaniwala: 
  Mga kasabong, huwag kayo magpaniwala sa gunggong naito. Galit sa lahi natin ito.


> *sipunin* exists but not *sumipon* or *magsipon*,


  sumipon: 
  kakainis sinisipon na nga ako lalo pa akong sumipon habang umiiyak ako sa episode ng ktkh 

  magsipon: 
  Eh kung ang punto mo dapat magsipon sipon din kami habang nagdarasal eh di ata maganda yun, depende na siguro sa amin kung iiyak kaming manalangin pero usually pag sa private places na.


> and so on


  well I hope there aren’t thousands of trivial ones like the ones I’ve dug up on Google.


----------



## Equinozio

Hi, kman1!  Just a quick post as I don't have the time to write a longer one right now. I just wanna say, if those are the kinds of hits you get on Google, don't rely on it. Most of the sentences you gave are Tagalog but they sound horrible. Will get back to you on the other points later.

P.S. Sorry, my mistake, gumulat does exist. I just don't hear it that often (unlike magulat, manggulat, gulatin). I'll give better examples later.


----------



## niernier

At the southern Tagalog region, the Tagalog language is already influenced by how the Cebuanos and Bicolanos conjugate the verbs. Some provinces are also noted to be speaking the "wrong" Tagalog, but don't get the idea that they speak incorrectly on purpose. It's the the way how the transition of language works from Tagalog to other Philippine languages. As far as dialects of Tagalog are concerned, these dialects are perfect in their own right. But because we have the standard Tagalog, one could say, "That is wrong, and this one is the correct way of saying it"

To illustrate an example, the progressive aspect -um- in standard Tagalog is na- is southern Tagalog. For example, the word kumakain in standard Tagalog becomes nakain in southern Tagalog. We could have just ignored it, but it is actually the butt of some jokes by other Tagalog speakers. Imagine one from the south who said "Nakain ka ba ng pating?" To a Tagalog speaker in Manila, it means "Have you been eaten by a shark?" But actually in the south, it means "Do you eat shark?"

The bottom line, however, is that you can't rely on google. One can use it for the purpose of seeing if the combo is correct, but he should have a very good understanding on the difference between standard Tagalog and its dialects.


----------



## Ajura

niernier said:


> At the southern Tagalog region, the Tagalog language is already influenced by how the Cebuanos and Bicolanos conjugate the verbs. Some provinces are also noted to be speaking the "wrong" Tagalog, but don't get the idea that they speak incorrectly on purpose. It's the the way how the transition of language works from Tagalog to other Philippine languages. As far as dialects of Tagalog are concerned, these dialects are perfect in their own right. But because we have the standard Tagalog, one could say, "That is wrong, and this one is the correct way of saying it"
> 
> To illustrate an example, the progressive aspect -um- in standard Tagalog is na- is southern Tagalog. For example, the word kumakain in standard Tagalog becomes nakain in southern Tagalog. We could have just ignored it, but it is actually the butt of some jokes by other Tagalog speakers. Imagine one from the south who said "Nakain ka ba ng pating?" To a Tagalog speaker in Manila, it means "Have you been eaten by a shark?" But actually in the south, it means "Do you eat shark?"
> 
> The bottom line, however, is that you can't rely on google. One can use it for the purpose of seeing if the combo is correct, but he should have a very good understanding on the difference between standard Tagalog and its dialects.


 
In the language of manila some of the words from other languages in the north of philippines are found and they are important words in that speech that is why it is a creole language because there are words from Pangasinan,Kapampangan and Ilocano in it and they are important words one of these words is Tayo which means 'we'.



> It's a sad fact that Manila Tagalog is causing other dialects to die out. Do you speak Batangas Tagalog? Or any other dialects of Tagalog (Bulacan, Tayabas, Bataan etc.)? If you do, or if you know a lot about these dialects, perhaps you could start a thread about them? I would be very interested to know the differences in grammar, vocabulary etc. between them.


 
Bulacan,Rizal, Northern Quezon(around infanta) and majority of Nueva Ecija, Bataan and Zambales speak the same language and that is the language of manila, i call this language Manilenyo.




> At the southern Tagalog region, the Tagalog language is already influenced by how the Cebuanos and Bicolanos conjugate the verbs. Some provinces are also noted to be speaking the "wrong" Tagalog, but don't get the idea that they speak incorrectly on purpose. It's the the way how the transition of language works from Tagalog to other Philippine languages. As far as dialects of Tagalog are concerned, these dialects are perfect in their own right. But because we have the standard Tagalog, one could say, "That is wrong, and this one is the correct way of saying it"
> 
> To illustrate an example, the progressive aspect -um- in standard Tagalog is na- is southern Tagalog. For example, the word kumakain in standard Tagalog becomes nakain in southern Tagalog. We could have just ignored it, but it is actually the butt of some jokes by other Tagalog speakers. Imagine one from the south who said "Nakain ka ba ng pating?" To a Tagalog speaker in Manila, it means "Have you been eaten by a shark?" But actually in the south, it means "Do you eat shark?"


Simple, the dialects of Batangas,southern quezon and marinduque is the language of batangas the language they say to be 'pure tagalog' but the dialects of Cavite,Laguna are mixed with the language of manila this is starting to happen in batangas the dialects in the bicol/quezon border and surrounding areas are transitional to bikol.

The Pasig River is a part the La-Spezia-Rimini line of the Philippines it means without the spanish colonization the areas north of that would be speaking Northern Philippine languages.


----------



## niernier

kman1 said:


> And also ‘makatanda’:
> - ang lakas maka ate ang laks din *makatanda *dada na lang
> - Bobo ako sa daanan. Hindi ako madaling *makatanda *ng mga sakayan.
> 
> I gave instances of where I saw “makatanda” above but you know, when I first saw what you wrote, I was thinking that ‘makatanda’ wouldn’t make any sense anyway and that is why it doesn’t exist.  (well, I found it on Google.... hmm..)  But what would be the intended meaning of ‘makatanda’?  It wouldn’t be abilitative. (well that is unless you’re referring to Superman, such as ‘he isn’t able to grow old because of his superpowers’  hehe)  So that would mean you were referring to ‘tanda’ not being able to be expressed in the simple present tense using ‘maka-‘.  Is that all right?  (‘to be old’ is expressed ‘matanda’, I think.  )


The "*makatanda*" in the examples that you have retrieved from google is the abilitative form of the verb "to remember", but, its a rare conjugation. 
This abilitative form is unusual, that's why Equinozio noted that it doesn't exist. We don't normally conjugate tanda to maka-. Thus the following sentence:

- Bobo ako sa daanan. Hindi ako madaling *makatanda  *ng mga sakayan. 

can be transformed to,

- Bobo ako sa daan. Hindi ko madaling *matandaan *ang mga sasakyan.
*Rough translation:
- I am not good with directions. I can't easily remember the vehicles.*

Based on the major affixes, tanda is normally an object focus verb. The suffix -an is always required. In the actor focus, tanda is a mag- verb, but the meaning is a little different from "to remember". It has a different nuance. However, I am sorry that I can't express what it means. It's at the tip of my tongue already. I hope somebody else can clear that.

On the other hand, tanda can also mean "to grow old". It's an -um- verb in the actor focus (tumanda) like what Equinozio mentioned.


----------



## Equinozio

> So, that means “ i- ” is an affix that is a major affix (Object-focus) AND also a derived affix (beneficiary-focus) <- correct?


Correct. *I-* also occurs in a few verbs that are neither OF nor BF, but in my opinion, they're not so important for beginning and intermediate students.



> If that is correct then I guess the context will tell me which meaning is being used.


That's right.



> I was thinking that ‘makatanda’ wouldn’t make any sense anyway and that is why it doesn’t exist.


You're right! I was actually thinking of mentioning that in my previous post but I didn't as I thought it was getting too long. As you said, the ability verb wouldn't make any sense. And as for the involuntary-action verb, well, *tumanda*, in itself, expresses involuntary action (_growing old_) so adding *maka-* would be redundant.

---

All the affixes I added to your list are major affixes. That doesn't mean they are always major affixes though. Here are some examples of major and derived *pag-...-an, ipag-* etc. verbs:

pag-...-an
major: paghigantihan - to take revenge on (DF)
derived: pagkainan - to eat at/in (LF)

ipag-
major: ipagbili - to sell (OF)
derived: ipagluto - to cook for (BF)

ipang-
major: ipanganak - to give birth to (OF)
derived: ipanluto - to cook with (IF)

maka-
major: makahalata - to notice (AF)
derived: makakain - to be able to eat (AF)

pang-...-an
major: panghimasukan - to meddle in (DF)
derived: pangisdaan - to go fishing in/on (LF) - This verb is very rare.

---



> but how will I know this?


By using a dictionary and a grammar book, or asking a native speaker.



> I’m glad you informed me of this but will the dictionary list this as well?


I'm sorry to say that I'm not sure whether all such verbs will be listed. But I'm happy to report that both the verb _antukin_ and the adjective _an*tu*kin_ are listed in L. English. Just to illustrate how they are used:
Inantok si Juan. - Juan got sleepy.
An*tu*kin si Juan. - Juan is prone to sleepiness or John is often sleepy.



> are these considered exceptions?


No.

---



> So, does this Schachter and Otanes book you recommend list all grammar patterns in Tagalog as well?


I'm not sure if it lists all, but there are a lot of grammar patterns in there.

---



> I'll give better examples later.


Here they are:
- *Magulat* exists but not *gumulat* or *maggulat*.
- *Matuwa* exists but not *tumuwa* or *magtuwa*.

---

As for learning derived verbs, I can think of two ways to approach this.

1. You encounter verbs first, whether in everyday life (as used by native speakers) or in learning and reference materials, and then you look up their meaning or the meaning of their affix(es) in a dictionary or a grammar book.

2. You learn to construct verbs by studying the rules for combining roots and affixes. For this option, I would suggest getting a copy of Schachter and Otanes.

(As for major verbs, you can only use Option no. 1.)

Over time, you will get the hang of affix-root combos and will develop a feel for whether a certain verb exists or not.


----------



## Equinozio

Just for fun, here are the sentences from Google again, in correct standard Manila Tagalog, the only dialect of Tagalog I speak. I won't touch the text speak and other contractions though.

- _kung sabi ng leaders nila magkain kumain sila ng tae para mawala kasalanan nila_
- _namit magkain sang NASI LEMAK..._ - not Tagalog
- _antagal naman nilang matapos magkain kumain_
- _magandang morning umaga [or, good morning]!! kakatapos mag-kain kumain!_

- _Dady Az! ipagkuha ikuha mo naman ako 'pag mas maaga ka o!_
- _KAHIT IPAGKUHA ikuha NG TUBIG AY HINDI SYA PINAPANSIN_ - There's something wrong with this sentence.
- _at the day before nasa grill queen din ako, si Via at Gio, ayoko ipagkuha ikuha si Via ng water, sabi niya kung si Lance daw yun ipagkukuha ikukuha ko, sabi ko correction, sya ang kukuha._
- _HAHAHA ipagkuha ikuha mo nalang ako ng juice_

- _ang lakas maka ate ang laks din makatanda dada na lang_ - This sentence doesn't make any sense at all.
- _Bobo ako sa daanan. Hindi ako madaling makatanda ng mga sakayan._ - As niernier has said, the root here is different, that is, the verb means "to be able to remember" instead of "to be able to grow old." Makatanda meaning "to be able to grow old" does not exist.

- _ANG TRADE REVELATION NA ITO NI ALVAREZ AY GUMULAT SA MARAMI LALO PAT MARAMI ANG UMAASA NA ISA SA MGA TOP OFF GUARDS NG GINEBRA TULAD NINA CYRUS BAGUIO_ - ok for written material but would sound stilted in ordinary conversation. I'd say "Ginulat ng trade revelation ang marami..." or "marami ang nagulat sa trade revelation...." etc.
- _at kung habang nagbibilang ka ng asin ay merong luko-luko na gumulat sau..._ - ok
- _Ayaw niyang maggulat manggulat ng bagong gising_

- _Mga kasabong, huwag kayo magpaniwala maniwala sa gunggong naito na ito. Galit sa lahi natin ito._

- _kakainis sinisipon na nga ako lalo pa akong sumipon sinipon habang umiiyak ako sa episode ng ktkh_
- _Eh kung ang punto mo dapat magsipon sipon din kami habang nagdarasal eh di ata maganda yun, depende na siguro sa amin kung iiyak kaming manalangin pero usually pag sa private places na._ - This sentence is beyond repair.  I don't know whether it came from a non-native speaker, an extremely careless native speaker or a machine translation tool. Anyway, I wouldn't bother rewriting it as it sounds very dumb.


----------



## Equinozio

> Imagine one from the south who said "Nakain ka ba ng pating?" To a Tagalog speaker in Manila, it means "Have you been eaten by a shark?" But actually in the south, it means "Do you eat shark?"


I've heard of this too. I just want to add that, if I'm not mistaken, they would say _*naka*in_ (there's a stress on _na_) for the second meaning, and _na*ka*in_ (no stress on _na_, just like in standard Manila Tagalog) for the first meaning.



> there are words from Pangasinan,Kapampangan and Ilocano in it and they are important words one of these words is Tayo which means 'we'.


How do you say _tayo_ in Batangas Tagalog?


----------



## Ajura

Equinozio said:


> I've heard of this too. I just want to add that, if I'm not mistaken, they would say _*naka*in_ (there's a stress on _na_) for the second meaning, and _na*ka*in_ (no stress on _na_, just like in standard Manila Tagalog) for the first meaning.
> 
> How do you say _tayo_ in Batangas Tagalog?



it is Kita, but it is now uncommon in use there because of Manilisms this Manilisms of course happens in Bicolano as well a friend told me that but the situation there is different because of the awareness of the distinction and because it is a recognized language compared to the language of Batangas, the use of kita I think is now normally only found in remote places in batangas(i was once in tagaytay and cavite) and places near Bicol,Marinduque and Camarines Norte that speak the language of Batangas...

without manilisms the language of manila and the language of batangas would be moderately uninteligible and uneducated speakers of both idioms will not understand each other.
An example is that We are eating here!
In the language of Manila and Central Luzon
Kumakain tayo dito!
In the language of Batangas and s.quezon.
Nakain kita dine!/Nakain ta' dine..

Niernier please add the Bicol equivalent if you want to...

The speakers of the manila idiom also use the word urong for washing dishes..

When I first talk to rural people from bicol and batangas I think they are from visayas before they tell their home province.

Manilisms is a consequence of world getting smaller due to overpopulation and also of education.


----------



## kman1

This is a quick response, I'll post a longer one later after I finish cleaning but I just wanted to say: 


> I was actually thinking of mentioning that in my previous post but I didn't as I thought it was getting too long.


PLEASE feel free to post as much information as you like.  It can be as long as you like.  The more information the better as you can see in my detailed long posts.


----------



## Doc Bee

Ajura said:


> it is Kita, but it is now uncommon in use there because of Manilisms this Manilisms of course happens in Bicolano as well a friend told me that but the situation there is different because of the awareness of the distinction and because it is a recognized language compared to the language of Batangas, the use of kita I think is now normally only found in remote places in batangas(i was once in tagaytay and cavite) and places near Bicol,Marinduque and Camarines Norte that speak the language of Batangas...
> 
> without manilisms the language of manila and the language of batangas would be moderately uninteligible and uneducated speakers of both idioms will not understand each other.
> An example is that We are eating here!
> In the language of Manila and Central Luzon
> Kumakain tayo dito!
> In the language of Batangas and s.quezon.
> Nakain kita dine!/Nakain ta' dine..
> 
> Niernier please add the Bicol equivalent if you want to...
> 
> The speakers of the manila idiom also use the word urong for washing dishes..
> 
> When I first talk to rural people from bicol and batangas I think they are from visayas before they tell their home province.
> 
> Manilisms is a consequence of world getting smaller due to overpopulation and also of education.



I agree with the previous assertions here that Manila-based Filipino is killing the Southern Tagalog dialects more than it's killing other regional languages. My suggestion is for the K-12 program to incorporate dialectical diversity in mother tongue- based primary education schemes. If they can do it to major regional languages (Ilocano, Cebuano etc), why can't they do it to dialects (Batangan, Marinduqueno etc).


----------

