# kami / tayo / kayo / sila ni X



## Qcumber

I know groups may be expressed by the structure: plural pronoun + ni + name of representative of the group. (The English translation doesn't fully render the Tagalog phrase.)

1) kamí ni Edwin = we and Edwin

Such phrases may be used in clauses.

2) Bábayáran kó kayó ni Edwin.
= I'll pay you and Edwin.  

What happens when the name is replaced by a noun? Is it necessary to add a possessive adjective? 

3) Bábayáran kó kayó nang kuyá ninyó. 
= I'll pay you and your eldest brother.

4) Bábayáran kó kayó nang kuyá.
= I'll pay you and your eldest brother.


----------



## kios_01

Yes. That's a very good observation. I gotta say.

When I read the second example, a question popped in my head: "Whose brother?"

So yes, you need a possessive: either "mo" or "ninyó."

"mo" when that brother has no other younger siblings besides the one you are speaking to.

"ninyó" when that brother has more younger siblings besides the one you are speaking to.

Of course, acknowledging that the older brother has more siblings besides the one you are speaking to is optional. So really, you can use "mo" or "ninyo."


----------



## moonshine

The first 2 sentences are correct. Just to point out, the phrases "kayo ni <person>", "kami ni <person>" and "sila ni <person>" may not necessarily indicate a big group as it can be translated as "the <person> and you", "the <person> and me" and "the <person> and him/her" respectively.

As for the 3rd and 4th sentences, the usage of nang is incorrect, it should be ng. Also, the way sentence 3 & 4 are constructed, they sound like you're paying the person off with a brother (his own brother in sentence #3). It's acceptable I guess, but just to make a distinction, you can add the conjunction *at*. 

3. Babayaran ko kayo *at **ng *kuya mo/niyo/ninyo.
Use mo if you're just talking to one person, niyo or ninyo if you're talking to more than one person, all of them related to the brother.

4. Babayaran ko kayo *ni *kuya.
Use this sentence to say that you'll be paying back the person you're talking to and the brother, to which both of you are related.


----------



## kios_01

moonshine said:


> As for the 3rd and 4th sentences, the usage of nang is incorrect, it should be ng. Also, the way sentence 3 & 4 are constructed, they sound like you're paying the person off with a brother (his own brother in sentence #3). It's acceptable I guess, but just to make a distinction, you can add the conjunction *at*.


 
Actually, to me the construction using "nang" instead of "ng" is more correct. Using "ng" to me would indicate a meaning such as the one you pointed out, i.e., you're paying the person off with a brother.

"Nang" indicates a connection/conjunction, which in this case means "and." That's why it's "paying you and your brother."

Meanwhile, "ng" indicates a preposition, daresay an instrumental preposition, which means that the subject is using the object of "ng" as the instrument with which he or she accomplishes an action. Thus, it becomes "paying you with/through/by means of your brother."

But that's just my logic of it.


----------



## Qcumber

kios_01 said:


> So yes, you need a possessive: either "mo" or "ninyó."


Of course! I had forgotten there were two possibilities: two siblings and more than two siblings.
So the possessive is necessary. Thanks a lot Kio.


----------



## Qcumber

moonshine said:


> 3. Babayaran ko kayo *at **ng *kuya mo/niyo/ninyo.


Do you mean "kayó ng kuyá" is not clear in you mind?


----------



## Qcumber

moonshine said:


> 4. Babayaran ko kayo *ni *kuya.
> Use this sentence to say that you'll be paying back the person you're talking to and the brother, to which both of you are related.


Yes, an interesting variation.
So this phrase implies that a minimum of four siblings are involved:
a) the speaker
b) the addressees (2 or more)
c) the eldest brother


----------



## Qcumber

kios_01 said:


> Actually, to me the construction using "nang" instead of "ng" is more correct. Using "ng" to me would indicate a meaning such as the one you pointed out, i.e., you're paying the person off with a brother.


 
Kios, Moonshine, please forget the *ng Vs nang* controversy. *Ng* 
[naõ] is the abbreviation of *nang* [naõ] and of course is pronounced the same.

Between WWI and WWII, it was decided that *ng* [naõ] would be used before nominal phrases and *nang* [naõ] before adverbial phrases. This is artificial and doesn't reflect anything real in Tagalog grammar.

As I already said, in this forum, I prefer to write *nang* whichever the phrase because there may be visitors who could think *ng* is pronounced [õ]. This actually happened with a German I know.

It goes without saying I am not asking you to write *nang* where you are used to writing *ng*.  I only gave this explanation so that you shouldn't waste your time explaining me the artificial spelling rule concerning *ng Vs nang*.

P.S. I was not consistent in my initial post as regards this matter.


----------



## Qcumber

Family rôles (amá "father", iná "mother", kuyá "elder / eldest brother", áte "elder / eldest" sister") being treated like names by members of the family, the best is to leave them aside for the moment and experiment with an ordinary noun: *pinúnò* "commandant".
Remarks. In what follows 
a) *ng* is the abbreviation of *nang* and should be read /naÎ/.
b) *mga* is the abbreviation of *mangá* and should be read /ma'Îa/.

Can _pinúnò_ be left without a possessive?
1) kamí ng pinúnò = we and the commandant 
2) táyo ng pinúnò = you and us and the commandant
3) kayó ng pinúnò = you and the commandant
4) silá ng pinúnò = they and the commandant


Is the preferable position of the possessive after or before _pinúnò_?
AFTER
5) kamí ng pinúnò nilá = we and their commandant 
6) táyo ng pinúnò nilá = you and us and their commandant
7) kayó ng pinúnò nilá = you and their commandant
8) silá ng pinúnò nilá = they and their commandant
BEFORE
9) kamí ng kaniláng pinúnò = we and their commandant 
10) táyo ng kaniláng pinúnò = you and us and their commandant
11) kayó ng kaniláng pinúnò = you and their commandant
12) silá ng kaniláng pinúnò = they and their commandant


Can _pinúnò_ be turned into the plural?
13) kamí ng mga pinúnò = we and the commandants 
14) kamí ng mga pinúnò nilá = we and their commandants 
16) kamí ng mga kaniláng pinúnò = we and their commandants 


Can _ng pinúnò_ and _ng mga pinúnò_ be replaced by pronouns?
17) kamí niyá = we and he
18) kamí nilá = we and they


----------



## Qcumber

If a name is used, can it be turned into the plural?
1) kayó ni Simón = you and Simon
2) kayó niná Simón = you and Simon and his group


----------



## mataripis

Qcumber said:


> I know groups may be expressed by the structure: plural pronoun + ni + name of representative of the group. (The English translation doesn't fully render the Tagalog phrase.)
> 
> 1) kamí ni Edwin = we and Edwin
> 
> Such phrases may be used in clauses.
> 
> 2) Bábayáran kó kayó ni Edwin.
> = I'll pay you and Edwin.
> 
> What happens when the name is replaced by a noun? Is it necessary to add a possessive adjective?
> 
> 3) Bábayáran kó kayó nang kuyá ninyó.
> = I'll pay you and your eldest brother.
> 
> 4) Bábayáran kó kayó nang kuyá.
> = I'll pay you and your eldest brother.


 Qcumber here are my Tagalog translations of your given sentences. 1.) Kami ni Edwin= Edwin and I   2.)Si Edwin at ako ang magbabayad sa inyo.= Edwin and i are the one to pay you.   3.)  Babayaran ko ikaw at ang kuya mo.= I'll pay you and your elder brother.    You may say= Babayaran ko kayo kapwa./ Kapwa ko kayong babayaran.= I will pay both of you.


----------

