# Ang mga estudyante si Tom at si Alex (Predicate-Subject)



## MarFish

In class we are learning subject-predicate (ay) and predicate-subject sentences. The professor asked us if this sentence was grammatically correct:

_Ang mga estudyante si Tom at si Alex._

The professor said this sentence was incorrect because it needs _ay_. I thought this sentence was correct because _si Tom at si Alex_ could be the subject and _Ang mga estudyante _could be the predicate. This is how I interpret the following sentences (underlining the subject and bold the predicate):

[P-S]* Ang mga estudyante*_ si Tom at si Alex_. Tom and Alex are the students.
[S-P] _Ang mga estudyante ay *si Tom at si Alex*. _The students are Tom and Alex.

So my question is, doesn't _ang_ act as a definitizer in the original sentence and it is grammatically correct in predicate-subject form? My professor said _Mga estudyante si Tom at si Alex_ would be the correct predicate-subject form, but wouldn't that translate to _Tom and Alex are students_​ and not _Tom and Alex are *the *students? _Or is it that _Mga estudyante si Tom at si Alex_ is ambiguous and can mean both?

Second question:

Can _ang_ follow _ay_? _Si Tom at si Alex ay ang mga estudyante. _Tom and Alex are *the* students.


----------



## DotterKat

Your questions touch on several issues but what really needs to be clarified are the different uses of *ay*, the role of the definitizer *ang* and the correct identification of subject and predicate.

First, the original sentence is indeed incorrect but can be most simply remedied by a comma placed between the two clauses:

_And mga estudyante*,* si Tom at si Alex_. (Let's say Tom and Alex are led into the principal's office and introduced by the secretary thusly: "The students, Tom and Alex." --- the context being that the principal was expecting a number of visitors, among them being teachers, parents and this particular pair of students, Tom And Alex).

Look at the original Tagalog text again and the English translation:

Ang mga estudyante si Tom at si Alex .....
The students Tom and Alex ....

See how both entire texts are actually noun (nominal) phrases? Taken in the orginal form, they need a predicate (as in Ang mga estudyante, si Tom at si Alex, _ang nagpasimuno ng kaguluhan_ OR Ang mga estudyanteng sina Tom at Alex ang nagpasimuno ng kaguluhan --- The students Tom and Alex _started all the trouble_). If you consider the original text as two clauses divided by a comma, that would solve the problem most easily.

*Ang* is indeed a definitizer in the original text and in fact is the reason why the sentence is incorrect if you do not divide it into two clauses by a comma. Without the comma, the entire thing is simply a nominal phrase introduced by the definitizer ang and in need of a predicate at the end as I have discussed above. This makes your grammatical breakdown into subject (si Tom at si Alex) and predicate (Ang mga estudyante) errononeous. Your professor is correct in that it needs the particle* ay*: (P-S) Ang mga estudyante ay si Tom at si Alex OR Ang mga estudyante ay sina Tom at Alex. With the *ay* particle functioning as a *topic marker*, we clearly have a predicate preceding the subject making one coherent sentence. Without the ay marker or a comma, you have an incomplete sentence:

Ang mga estudyante si Tom at si Alex .... _ay ano_?
The students Tom and Alex ...._ are wha_t?

This sentence: _Mga estudyante si Tom at si Alex _is likewise in the P-S form. However, without the definitizer *ang* and only the non-specific plural marker *mga* at the beginning makes it a complete sentence unto itself --- it is merely making the statement that Tom and Alex _are students_ (contrast with The students Tom and Alex ... _are what_?)

This sentence: _Ang mga estudyante ay si Tom at si Alex _is still in the P-S form and not S-P as you have indicated (Who is being talked about? Tom and Alex. Tom and Alex are the subjects. What is being said about them, i.e., in what way are they being modified or described? That_ they are the students_ --- that is the predicate).
Again, with the use of the definitizer _ang_ at the beginning, you have to imagine the preceding lines. Why are Tom and Alex being specially picked out by _ang_? Let's say the principal's office is full of young people, only two of whom are students, Tom and Alex. Thus, they were pointed out with the sentence: _Ang mga estudyante_ ay si Tom at si Alex (_The students_ are Tom and Alex). 

Your last question involves the use of the particle *ay* as an* inversion marker*: (S-P) Si Tom at si Alex ay ang mga estudyante OR Sina Tom at Alex ay ang mga estudyante (Tom and Alex _are the _students). The word order is inverted by ay from verb-initial (P) to subject-initial (S). Again, dropping the _ang_ definitizer makes the sentence less "specific": (S-P) Si Tom at si Alex ay mga estudyante (Tom and Alex are students). In the former case with _ang_, Tom and Alex are being singled out (being "definitized") for special cause which we will have to imagine lacking that context --- perhaps they are _the_ students who started the fight or who got the highest grades, etc. In the latter case, without _ang_, Tom and Alex are merely identified _as students_.


----------



## MarFish

Thanks DotterKat, but I am still unclear. This link has the example _ang teacher ang babae _(the woman is the teacher). I thought _si_ was the version of _ang_ except for names. So I still don't understand why _ang teacher ang babae _is a valid sentence while _ang estudyante si Alex_​ would be incorrect.

_Who is that student? Si Alex ang estudyante.

_Actually... I can't think of a sentence that would give me an answer _Ang estudyante si Alex. _Maybe I am starting to understand. But could you clarify the above about _si _and _ang_?


----------



## DotterKat

Think of it this way: Ang teacher ang babae (The teacher is the female / woman ---- a complete sentence with a complete thought.)
Ang estudyante si Alex (The student Alex ..... _is what? _---- again, an incomplete sentence.) Once more, if you considered that as two clauses divided by a comma, it can work: Ang estudyante, si Alex. (The student, Alex.)

_*Si *_is just a personal noun marker (singular) used to aim the focus on a proper name._* Ang *_is a definitizer in that sentence (Si Mary ang babae --- _Mary is the female / woman_).


----------



## Equinozio

MarFish said:


> In class we are learning subject-predicate (ay) and predicate-subject sentences. The professor asked us if this sentence was grammatically correct:
> 
> _Ang mga estudyante si Tom at si Alex._
> 
> The professor said this sentence was incorrect because it needs _ay_. I thought this sentence was correct because _si Tom at si Alex_ could be the subject and _Ang mga estudyante _could be the predicate. This is how I interpret the following sentences (underlining the subject and bold the predicate):
> 
> [P-S]* Ang mga estudyante*_ si Tom at si Alex_. Tom and Alex are the students.
> [S-P] _Ang mga estudyante ay *si Tom at si Alex*. _The students are Tom and Alex.
> 
> So my question is, doesn't _ang_ act as a definitizer in the original sentence and it is grammatically correct in predicate-subject form? My professor said _Mga estudyante si Tom at si Alex_ would be the correct predicate-subject form, but wouldn't that translate to _Tom and Alex are students_​ and not _Tom and Alex are *the *students? _Or is it that _Mga estudyante si Tom at si Alex_ is ambiguous and can mean both?
> 
> Second question:
> 
> Can _ang_ follow _ay_? _Si Tom at si Alex ay ang mga estudyante. _Tom and Alex are *the* students.



The predicate represents relatively new information. So if the listener knows Tom and Alex and you want to give new information about them (that they are students), you can say "Estudyante sina Tom at Alex." Tom and Alex are students.

If the listener sees two students but can't identify them (say, they're far away or they're disguised) and you want to give new information about them (that they are Tom and Alex), you can say "Sina Tom at Alex ang mga estudyante." Tom and Alex are the students. / The students are Tom and Alex.

"Ang mga estudyante sina Tom at Alex" sounds awkward, unless you are expressing contrast and there is a pause. For example, you can say "Ang mga estudyante, sina Tom at Alex. Ang teacher, si Bob." (Tagalog POD–Pause–News or Subject-Pause-Predicate)

As for why "Ang... si..." is not normally said, perhaps it's because in such equational sentences, it makes more sense to give specific information (Tom and Alex) about something generic (the students), rather than the other way around.

Yes, ang can follow ay, for example:
Si Jojo ay ang pinakamatalino.


----------



## MarFish

Thanks DotterKat and Equinozio. You have both explained very well and I think I am starting to see why "Ang... si" is sounding awkward and incorrect!


----------



## mataripis

MarFish said:


> In class we are learning subject-predicate (ay) and predicate-subject sentences. The professor asked us if this sentence was grammatically correct:
> 
> _Ang mga estudyante si Tom at si Alex._
> 
> The professor said this sentence was incorrect because it needs _ay_. I thought this sentence was correct because _si Tom at si Alex_ could be the subject and _Ang mga estudyante _could be the predicate. This is how I interpret the following sentences (underlining the subject and bold the predicate):
> 
> [P-S]* Ang mga estudyante*_ si Tom at si Alex_. Tom and Alex are the students.
> [S-P] _Ang mga estudyante ay *si Tom at si Alex*. _The students are Tom and Alex.
> 
> So my question is, doesn't _ang_ act as a definitizer in the original sentence and it is grammatically correct in predicate-subject form? My professor said _Mga estudyante si Tom at si Alex_ would be the correct predicate-subject form, but wouldn't that translate to _Tom and Alex are students_​ and not _Tom and Alex are *the *students? _Or is it that _Mga estudyante si Tom at si Alex_ is ambiguous and can mean both?
> 
> Second question:
> 
> Can _ang_ follow _ay_? _Si Tom at si Alex ay ang mga estudyante. _Tom and Alex are *the* students.


Hello marfish! Here are my Tagalog versions for the 2 given sentences. 1.) Mga Estudiante/mag aaral sina Tom at Alex.   2.) Ang mga Estudiante/mag aaral ay sina Tom at Alex.      i add this one   3.) Silang lahat ay mga estudiante/mag aaral.


----------

