# Bear, wear, carry, tolerate...



## ThomasK

I have been asking about this at the All Languages forum, but have not got very clear answers with regard to Tagalog. The point is: I am getting these translations from my informant



> In Tagalog;1.) Carry= Daladalahin/bitbitin 2.) Bear= Pasanin 3.) tolerate= tiisin/binabatah    4.)wear= Suot suot/ ibinihis



but I do not get an answer to the question: is the_ bit/bin _element some kind of root here? 


EXTra: is the idea of carrying, lit. or fig., somehow implied in all those words? Do they have other meanings/uses, not linked with carrying?


----------



## DotterKat

From ThomasK:
In Tagalog: 1.) Carry= Daladalahin/bitbitin 2.) Bear= Pasanin 3.) tolerate= tiisin/binabatah .....
but I do not get an answer to the question: is the_ bit/bin element some kind of root here? 
_
First, _bit_ is an integral part of the noun or verb *bitbit* (_bit_ alone is not an affix and does not mean anything in Tagalog). Bitbit as a noun: _Mabigat ba ang *bitbit* mo_? (Are your [*parcels/packages/carry-on stuff*] heavy?) Bitbit as a transitive verb: _Bitbit mo ba ang maleta_? (Are you *carrying* the suitcase?)
Second, the affix is "_in_" and not "bin". I am not familiar with "binabatah" that your informant suggested, and I don't believe it is an actual word at least not as far as Tagalog is concerned. It might be a word in archaic Tagalog, though I doubt that too. That leaves us with the affix "in" in the words: daladalahin (n), bitbitin (n), pasanin (n) - accent on second "a", pasanin (v) - accent on "i", tiisin (v). In all cases "in" is used as a suffix added to root words to form nominal (n) or verbal (v) forms.
1) *Dala* or *bitbit* (root for the noun referring to something that is carried, usually by hand) + *suffix -in* = daladalahin [duplication of root + "h" to separate two vowel sounds] (Madami ba siyang mga _daladalahin_? (Does he have a lot of (_hand-carried) parcels/packages/stuff_?)
Root word *bitbit* + *suffix -in* = _Bitbitin_ (t.v.) imperative mood of to carry. _Bitbitin mo ang kahon_ (Carry the boxes (command imperative mood of transitive verb (t.v.) to carry).
2) Root word *pasan* (noun referring to a load) + *suffix -in* = *pasanin*, (accent on second "a") noun usually referring to a figurative or conceptual burden. _Marami siyang pasanin sa buhay_. (He has a lot of _burdens_ in life / He has a very challenging life / His life is full of[_struggles/ troubles/ problems_,etc.])
Root word *pasan* (load) or *tiis* (patience, tolerance or forbearance) + *suffix -in* = *Pasanin *(v) - accent on the "i", or *tiisin *(v), verb form in imperative mood meaning to command or implore someone to suffer, bear or tolerate something, usually a conceptual rather than a physical burden. _Bilang magulang, marami kang mga problemang dapat pasanin_ (As a parent, you have to bear a lot of burdens). _Tiisin mo na lang ang kanyang panunukso._ (Just tolerate his teasing.)

From ThomasK:
....... 4.)wear= Suot suot/ ibinihis

This is not congruent with the aforementioned verbal or nominal forms. *Suot-suot* means "wearing" as in the _current state of wearing a piece of clothing_. _Suot-suot niya ang kanyang bagong damit_ (She is wearing her new dress.) To use the suffix -in, as we have done with the previous words: *suot* (verb "to wear" or "to put on" + *suffix -in* = *suotin* (imperative mood). _Suotin mo ang bagong damit mo _(Wear your new dress - command imperative mood).
*Bihis* (to wear or put on) + *infix -in-* = *binihis* (past tense _worn_ or _had put on_) + *prefix i-* = *ibinihis *(object focus verb _had put on something on somebody or clothed somebody with something_). _Bagong damit ang ibinihis niya sa bata _(She put on new clothes on the child.) Note that _ibinihis_ would be less commonly encountered than _binihis*an*_ or _sinuot*an*_.

From Thomas K:
"....is the idea of carrying, lit. or fig., somehow implied in all those words? Do they have other meanings/uses, not linked with 
carrying?"

Yes, as you have seen most of those words mean to carry a burden in either a literal or figurative sense with the exception of suot. However, in the realm of creative writing even suot can be made to assume the implication of a burden. I'll give you this very affected and over-wrought sentence only for illustration: _Clothe yourself with the mantle of power and responsibility_ (_Suotin mo ang pananamit ng kapangyarihan at pananagutan_) -- implying that one who is willing to do so will assume power, responsibility and their attendant burdens. The sentence sounds too contrived in English, and even more so in Tagalog so I would not use suot in this sense.


----------



## ThomasK

I apologize for making the wrong guesses, but this is precious and clear information. 

1 & 2 : burden, lit. vs. fig., and even patience. Very interesting: so even in Tagalog the verbs convey/ contain this meaning (_pati_, bear/ carry) in the verbs. I had not thought it was that common in languages, thought it was more like Indo-European. 

But you do not associate s_uot (_and wearing) with carrying then? I suppose the main difference is that it is not a burden in that case. But there is the same link with carrying a responsibility, which is common in IE languages (it might have been imported, as a result of Spanish influence, perhaps).


----------



## DotterKat

ThomasK said:


> ......But you do not associate s_uot (_and wearing) with carrying then? I suppose the main difference is that it is not a burden in that case......



I believe I finally understand what you are trying to express and where the mistake lies. You are using *wear* in the sense of one _taking on the responsibility_ over something and with that, the attendant burdens (which coincidentally, is the thought I was expressing in the final example of my last post). That would not be a very common turn of phrase in AE, in which one would more likely hear *assume* _the responsibility_, to a lesser extent _*carry* the responsibility_ and even less frequently, _*wear* the responsibility_. Having said that, the mistake then was in translating *wear* into the Tagalog *suot* which refers to clothing or what one does with it. If I got you right and you actually mean to say _wear/carry/assume the responsibility_ (with all the attendant headaches), then the correct Tagalog word is not suot but rather *akuin*: 

_*Akuin* mo ang responsibilidad sa mga pagkakamali ng iyong anak_ (Assume/take on the responsibility [for correcting or making up] for the mistakes that your child has commited).
_*Aakuin* ko ang responsibilidad para sa pagpapalaki ng itong kawawang naulilang bata_ (I will assume/take on the responsility for raising this pitiful orphaned child).

As a corollary, _wear_ in the sense of taking/carrying responsibility for a burden can lead to a _wearing away_ or an erosion of one's strength or spirit. In which case, the Tagalog translation is again not suot but rather words like *nakakapanghina*, *nakakapagod*, *nakakapanglugmok*, etc.

_Nakakapagod talaga ang pagpapalaki ng anak _(Raising a child wears me down/Raising a child is exhausting).


----------



## ThomasK

My starting-point was the concept 'carry'. I wonderd what kind of associations were attached to carrying in all respects. And I thought 'to wear' was also considered by the English speaking as some way of carrying (_to wear a hat // to carry a hat _[in Dutch we don't have a separate word, and nor do Romanic languages have one,I think]). I did not however think of 'wearing a responsibility', but being in charge of that (burden!), but I did think of the link between (a) wearing the garments/... appropriate for some function, for (b) someone carrying that responsibility (which is more durative than assuming, I think). 

The main question in the end is: does Tagalog use basic literal verbs when referring to abstract things ? In Dutch and German (and to some extent in English, French, etc.) one can see that. To raise refers to the lit. and fig. meaning (_educate_). Educate as such etymologically refers to leading-out (e-ducare). Opnemen in Dutch (up-take) refers to both picking up objects, but also interpreting words. So that is the underlying background that I have been exploring for years at All Languages...


----------



## DotterKat

I see. Teasing out our common linguistic DNA has a way of wandering into semiotics and sometimes skidding onto the slippery slope of speculation until one wakes up stranded in a room resonant with clicks and grunts. That is a bit beyond the scope of this particular forum, however fascinating it may be for many, myself enthusiastically included.



ThomasK said:


> The main question in the end is:...... does Tagalog use basic literal verbs when referring to abstract things ?...



Absolutely. Taking my example above, "..._pagpapalaki ng anak..." _the root is _*laki*_, a descriptor for the _enormous size of something. *Pagpapalaki *_would literally pertain to _cause something to increase in dimensions or mass or volume. _Contextually, of course, _pagpapalaki ng anak _means providing nourishment, health care, education and all other necessities for child rearing to make the child _grow _properly. Finally, Tagalog is indeed highly nuanced. It can express shades of meaning in one word, albeit highly affixed and complexly-conjugated, what would require more than one in the other languages with which I have facility.

So, good luck and I truly admire your endeavor.


----------



## ThomasK

Slippery slopes, stranded in a room resonant with..., and wandering and wondering, wishfully thinking and thus being led astray... Thanks for the understanding... 

And so pleased - _as a wishful thinker struggling with facts ;-)_ - to hear that even Tagalog has this way of expressing abstract ideas using very concrete verbs (words referring to very concrete realities)...


----------

