# kung



## Qcumber

Is my use of *kung* of this sentence of mine correct?

*Itátanóng námin sa mga kamaglalakbáy ninyó kung mákíta nilá kung anú-anóng bágong bágay sa palipáran.*
= We shalll ask your fellow passengers whether they saw anything new at the airport.


----------



## Aku

Hi Qcumber,Your use of "kung" is perfect. As far as I know it is the only translation of "whether" in Tagalog.Also, I would like to suggest the following revision to your sentence as you expressed it in English:Itatanong namin sa mga kasamahan ninyo sa paglalakbay kung may nakita silang bago sa paliparan.


----------



## Cracker Jack

It could also mean ''if.''


----------



## Qcumber

Aku said:


> Itatanong namin sa mga kasamahan ninyo sa paglalakbay kung may nakita silang bago sa paliparan.


Thanks a lot for your suggestions, Ako.
Perhaps I should kave used _kalakbáy_ for "fellow passenger".


----------



## epistolario

Qcumber said:


> Is my use of *kung* of this sentence of mine correct?
> 
> *Itátanóng námin sa mga kamaglalakbáy ninyó kung mákíta nilá kung anú-anóng bágong bágay sa palipáran.*
> = We shalll ask your fellow passengers whether they saw anything new at the airport.


 
To be honest with you, I'm not even sure if your sentence is grammatical (but you employed *kung* correctly). 

Tip: Conversational Tagalog is a hybrid of English and Tagalog (We have many borrowed words from English). Using words like kamaglalakbay and paliparan would make you sound ridiculous when talking to a Filipino in an ordinary conversation. It's like you using the language of Shakespeare in everyday conversation. 

If I were you, I would say: 
1. Tatanungin namin yung mga kasama niyong pasahero kung may nakita silang bago* sa airport. 
2. Itatanong namin sa mga kasama niyong pasahero kung may nakita silang bago* sa airport. 

**bagay* is already implied


----------



## Qcumber

ffrancis said:


> Using words like kamaglalakbay and *paliparan *would make you sound ridiculous when talking to a Filipino in an ordinary conversation. It's like you using the language of Shakespeare in everyday conversation.


 
*Palipáran* "airport". Did you have airports in the 17th century?  
I discovered this term in a taped conversation between two semi-literate Tagalogs. The tape was recorded by a fellow researcher during a field trip in 1980. A Tagalog student in charge of transcribing it said he didn't know this term, but understood it. It must be said he was only taught in English, and had a very poor vocabulary in Tagalog. For example, another term he didn't know was *angkát* "import". There were many others, but I only remember these two striking examples. 

Thanks for your explanations, but frankly, I don't care much for Taglish, and I'd be quite honoured to be held in ridicule by people who don't know what I know. Whatever, when I address Filipinos, I always use English, never Tagalog because of my lack of fluency.

Conversely I am interested in spoken Tagalog, and I mean Tagalog, not Taglish. 

I am mainly interested in literary Tagalog written by good authors. Frankly, what can people who have never read a book in Tagalog could teach me in this field?

I am also interested in official Tagalog as used in various serious sites. Apart from some differences in the lexicon, there is no grammatical difference with literary Tagalog although they resort to modern pragmatic strategies.

I hope my frankness didn't offend you.


----------



## epistolario

Qcumber said:


> *Palipáran* "airport". Did you have airports in the 17th century?
> I discovered this term in a taped conversation between two semi-literate Tagalogs. The tape was recorded by a fellow researcher during a field trip in 1980. A Tagalog student in charge of transcribing it said he didn't know this term, but understood it. It must be said he was only taught in English, and had a very poor vocabulary in Tagalog. For example, another term he didn't know was *angkát* "import". There were many others, but I only remember these two striking examples.
> 
> Hi Cucumber,
> 
> When I say it's like using the language of Shakespeare, it's only an exaggeration and I simply want to emphasize something. If you are Caucasian, I guess Filipinos would only think that you are a student of Tagalog that's why you're using those *profound* words and appreciate that you're interested in our language. But if you look Filipino, they would kid you and might tell you, "hindi kita maarók (I couldn't fathom the depths of your speech <- Is that how native English speakers would say it?)" and they would begin to speak with you sarcastically in a poetic way. Sometimes, we use these terms as a joke. For example, one time I said to my colleagues at work, "*Umawit* din ba si Jose?" and it started a mild uproar. *Umawit* (to sing) is correct but we would normally say *Kumanta* (from Spanish *cantar*).
> 
> Thanks for your explanations, but frankly, I don't care much for Taglish, and I'd be quite honoured to be held in ridicule by people who don't know what I know. Whatever, when I address Filipinos, I always use English, never Tagalog because of my lack of fluency.
> 
> To be honest with you, I myself do not like what's happening to our language but it's inevitable and it doesn't sound good. Unlike in Spanish and French, they borrow words from English but they make their own version. Here, you will hear college students say, "nagma-*match* ba yung mga *signatures*?", instead of "magkakapareho ba yung mga pirma (fm. Spanish *firma*)?"
> 
> Conversely I am interested in spoken Tagalog, and I mean Tagalog, not Taglish.
> 
> I'm sure you also know that we borrowed a lot of words from Spanish and the beauty of it is that these two languages have very close pronunciations so they blend well, unlike English: erport (airport), epol or apol (apple), etc. Btw, your sentences are understandable even if they sound unnatural.
> 
> I am mainly interested in literary Tagalog written by good authors. Frankly, what can people who have never read a book in Tagalog could teach me in this field?
> 
> I am also interested in official Tagalog as used in various serious sites. Apart from some differences in the lexicon, there is no grammatical difference with literary Tagalog although they resort to modern pragmatic strategies.
> 
> Yes, there are slight variations in word order, vocabulary, and mainly in accent. In our neighborhood, we refer to a large area as Marinduque because people there mostly came from that region and they have a very strong accent. We also have relatives in _Cavite_ and some of my teachers are from _Batangas_ and _Bulacán_. I observed though that _Laguna_ accent is neutral, like in Metro Manila (IMHO).
> 
> I hope my frankness didn't offend you.
> 
> Of course, not. Since you are learning our language, I thought you were interested mainly to converse (like many other language learners who don't care for the literary stuff of the language). That is, they only learn the language to be able to communicate (orally) to its people.


----------



## Qcumber

Ffrancis wrote:


> Hindî kitá maarók.


 
Now I understand why Filipinos talk of "deep Tagalog" when they don't understand. An illuminating metaphor.


----------



## mataripis

Qcumber said:


> Is my use of *kung* of this sentence of mine correct?
> 
> *Itátanóng námin sa mga kamaglalakbáy ninyó kung mákíta nilá kung anú-anóng bágong bágay sa palipáran.*
> = We shalll ask your fellow passengers whether they saw anything new at the airport.


 For me it is more clear to say in Tagalog; *Magtatanong kami sa mga nakasabay namin kung may nakita/napuna silang mga kakaibang bagay o tanawin sa Paliparan.  *


----------

