# Na vs Ng



## verbalphantom

I am quite new to Tagalog, and I've been building my vocab much more than my grammar skills. I understand that na is past tense, but I just get confused when I see something for example... "Isang papel na supot na walang-laman." I do know what the sentance means, but many times in a place where I would personally put "Ng" I see "Na" instead, can someone please help me out on the use of "Na" over "Ng". What does "Na" infer on the sentence that "Ng" doesn't, and visa-versa? Answers are greatly appreciated.

Thanks!


----------



## DotterKat

This is a broad topic as "na" and "ng" each function in a number of ways. Based on the sentence you gave, "na" functions as an adjective linker and therefore has no tense. You are confusing "na" as an adverb of time, which is totally different.
"Ng" would have no place in the sentence at all, unless we add another phrase to your text.

"*Isang papel na supot* *na walang-laman*." 

First, we have to correct your sentence. It should be: "*Isang supot na papel na walang laman."*

[Your original text is wrong because what you mean to say is "_a bag made of paper (a paper bag)"  _and not "_a paper that is a bag" ---- _the mental image may be the same, but you have to agree that the former is a better way of saying it.]

As you know, this means "*An empty* (_adjective_) *paper* (_adjective_) *bag* (_noun_)."

In Tagalog, a linker (_na_) is needed to link the actual adjective with the modified noun.

A more literal translation of your sentence would be: "One bag (made of) paper (that is) empty.
In the above sentence, "made of" and "that is" both function as linkers in the same way that "na" does in Tagalog.

>>>>>>>

We can add "ng" to your sentence in this manner: 
"Binigyan niya ako _*ng*_ isang supot na papel na walang laman."
(He/She gave me an empty paper bag.)

In the above, _*ng *_is functioning as a direct object marker. Literally, it marks whatever comes after it as the object of the action, done by the actor.

"*Binigyan* (verb) *niya* (actor of _binigyan_) *ako* (focus) *ng *(direct object marker) *isang *(adjective) *supot *(direct object)* na papel *(adjective + _na _linker) *na walang laman *(adjective + na linker).

>>>>>>>>>>

Here is "na" as an adverb of time:

"Binigyan *na *niya ako ng isang supot na papel na walang laman."

He/She *already *gave me an empty paper bag.

In the above, _na _(already) is an adverb of time, indicating a past action. Here is where you thought that _na_, the adjective linker, possesses a tense. As you now see, they are totally different. As the saying goes, they are as alike as chalk and cheese. Good luck and don't be discouraged!


----------



## verbalphantom

Thank you for your reply! I have posted this question other places(with about 10 replies), and your the first one to tell me the sentence is incorrect. The sentence comes from Rosetta Stone language learning software. People translated it "One paper bag with no contents.". Are you sure the sentence is wrong? I have come to understand why the first Na in the sentence is there instead of Ng, but I don't understand why the second Na is there. Na I've learned in this case is a different form of Ng used when the modifier ends in a consonant.  For example "Dilaw na kotse" Dilaw is the modifier ending in a consonant or "Pulang kotse" Pula is the modifier in this instance ending in a vowel. That explanation though does not explain for me the second Na. You have some light to shed on that?

Thanks!


----------



## DotterKat

When speaking Tagalog, I want to sound fluent, precise but also natural sounding. To me, "papel na supot" is similar to saying _shoes of leather _(instead of leather shoes) or _a box of wood _(instead of wooden box). As I mentioned, the mental image is the same but I prefer the more natural way of saying it.

Also, when speaking English, would one be more likely to say "One paper bag with no contents," or simply "An empty paper bag?"  To me, the first sentence sounds almost robotic and less natural sounding than the next sentence. Obviously, both are correct but in order to move forward from simply translating things verbatim and on to actually translating meaning, I think we have to be less literal in translation while retaining meaning.

"*Isang papel na supot* *na walang-laman*." 

Strictly speaking, the above sentence will translate as: One paper _of bag_ that has no contents.

See these other examples:

Bahay na bato = stone house (not Bato na bahay = stone of house)
Hikaw na ginto = gold earring (not Ginto na hikaw = gold of earring; but gintong hikaw is correct)
Plato na porselana = porcelain plate (not Porselana na plato = porcelain of plate; but platong porselana is correct)

If that does not convince you, then break down the sentence:

*Isang* (One -- limiting adjective) *papel* (paper -- should be a descriptive adjective, but will now function as the subject noun) *na *(linker) *supot* (bag -- should be the subject noun, but is now merely a descriptive adjective) *na *(linker) *walang laman *(descriptive adjective).

Translate that and you get: One paper (of bag _or _that is a bag _or _that is bag-shaped)
that is (empty _or _has no contents).

I don't know what else to tell you, but I am sure that the last sentence sounds pretty awkward --- the meaning will get through, but it sounds neither precise nor natural.

>>>>>

The second _na_?

".....*na *walang laman*."*

That too is a linker for the descriptive adjective "walang laman." Think of the linkers as something that adds fluency to speech.  Otherwise, the sentence would be "*Isa supot papel wala laman*."  The essential meaning may be there but obviously it does not sound fluent at all.


----------



## verbalphantom

I understand what your saying, thanks a lot! How long have you been studying if you don't mind me asking, and how much time do you spend on a daily basis? I understand the whole concept of linkers, that is clear to me, but what I didn't understand is why the word Na was used the second time instead of Ng. I can't systematically understand that. I am trying to learn how to construct sentences here, and I understand the use of Ng, but I just want a clear understanding of when to trade Ng for Na while constructing sentences.


----------



## niernier

The first and the second na in this sentence have the same usage - as a linker for a descriptive adjective. Dotterkat has clearly explained the difference between "supot na papel" and "papel na supot", but for me as a native speaker, they are both correct. I'll go with "papel na supot" though. The default order if you don't want to get confused is adjective first then noun. But always be aware in choosing when to put the noun first. For example, in English, when do you say "empty bag" and "bag that has no contents"? 

supot na walang-laman in the sentence is translated as "bag that has no contents". The na here _literally _means "that". 

But before I explain further, I would like to clear something. Are you confused of the ligature -ng or the unfocused direct object/actor marker ng? It seems you have a clear idea on the concept of linkers but how do you suggest if the sentence instead uses ng in place of the second na? Are you asking if it is possible to say "walang-lama*ng* supot"?


----------



## verbalphantom

Thank you niernier. I think I'm good for now. I think it's my lack of English grammar that's giving me trouble.


----------



## mataripis

There is a case that "Na" and "Ng" have the same meaning and use. 1.) Hangin na malamig= hanging malamig  2.) Panahon na mainit= Panahong mainit  3.) Salita na Tagalog= Salitang Tagalog


----------



## rempress

verbalphantom said:


> I am trying to learn how to construct sentences here, and I understand the use of Ng, but I just want a clear understanding of when to trade Ng for Na while constructing sentences.



I hope my answer will not confuse you more. The word "NG" when used as a word by itself and not as suffix shows possession. Example: "Bahay NG kaibigan ko" which means house of my friend. It is "of" in English.


----------



## bdpalawan

It is confusing to say that the letters ng (the bound linking form of na) has anything at all to do with the full WORD ng (pronounced "nang"). The linking na/-ng and the word ng are completely separate entities.

I also agree that the Rosetta phrase sounds artificial and unnatural. It's funny, too, because in American stores, the big question about bags is "paper or plastic." But paper bags are not used in the Philippines, so it's moot. The question might be "plastic (i.e. plastic bag) or karton (box)."


----------



## mapangarap

Use linkers to connect words in the following situations:


SituationExampleAdjective + nounMabait na bataNoun + adjectiveBatang mabaitPronoun + nounIyong anakPronoun + infinitiveGustó kong kumain




Linkers make spoken Filipino sound better. People may understand you if you omit connectors, but they will understand you better if you use connectors. For a better sound, add *–ng* to a word ending in a vowel and *–g* to a word ending in *n*. 




IfDoExampleA word ends in a vowelAdd -ngTayo: tayong lahatA word ends with nAdd –gAkin: aking laruanA word ends with a consonantUse the separate word naMabilis: mabilis na sasakyan


----------



## leah_214

good morning...

i've been having a hard time answering a friend with his question about linker

why do use different linkers for the ff sentences.:

1. Ang lumilipad "NA" ibon ay nabaril.
2. Kami ay nag-aaral ng Tagalog.


----------



## DotterKat

As indicated in the previous responses, *na* and *ng *are linkers that function differently. In your first sentence,* na* links the noun _ibon_ with the verb _lumilipad _(flying bird). In your second sentence,_* ng*_ functions as a direct object marker (nag-aaral ng ano? Tagalog --- studying what? Tagalog).


----------



## leah_214

Thanks...your answer is a supports my conclusion hahaha..


----------



## latchiloya

verbalphantom said:


> I understand that na is past tense


 
Let me make clarification on this. I don’t think _na _is past tense nor it denotes tense at all. What I know of is it may either be a conjunction or an adverb.



verbalphantom said:


> but I just get confused when I see something for example... "Isang papel na supot na walang-laman." I do know what the sentence means,


 
We would love you to state the English text equivalent so we avoid confusion, since you are referring *with* the English context--with which you refer as the thing you know of-- yet not stated in your thread for if we are to refer to the original context, which is Filipino, it would result more or less in 7 statements in English.



verbalphantom said:


> but many times in a place where I would personally put "Ng" I see "Na" instead, can someone please help me out on the use of "Na" over "Ng". What does "Na" infer on the sentence that "Ng" doesn't, and visa-versa? Answers are greatly appreciated.
> 
> Thanks!



I quite understand what you are implying. The problem is we are not particular as to what word class _na_ and _ng_, which we are referring to, would be categorized as.

For what made you reply this:



verbalphantom said:


> I just want a clear understanding of when to trade Ng for Na while constructing sentences.


 
…made the conversation clear enough.

You might want to check on these:

_White cat _
_puti __na__pusa _
-na is a separate word that function as modifier

_puti__ng__ pusa  _
-_na_ becomes _ng_ yet, take note, it becomes a part of the word _puti_ that modifies the noun _pusa_ yet the litteral meaning is the same. Thus _na_ is equivalent to the the _ng_ that that is linked to the modifier and not separate. Or else this this would mean:

*puti **ng** pusa *
_white __of__ cat_

As to which, the latter _ng_ is a conjunction which is equivalent to *of* or *relating to*.



verbalphantom said:


> what I didn't understand is why the word Na was used the second time instead of _Ng_.


 
I doubt *ng* is to be used instead of *na*.

Na – a modifier
Ng – a conjunction; _of_ or _relating to_

If you mean:



> _"Isang papel na supot na walang-laman."_


 
As:



> _“A paper bag with no content,”_


 
That “_papel na supot”_ as one word, then I would say it as:



> _*An empty paper bag*._


 
_Isang papel na supot na walang-laman_
_A paper bag which/that [is] empty_

In a Filipino Grammar, *na* can cause the nearby words to function as adjective to each other. And another thing is no marker for an adverb exists that at anytime an adjective can take a function of an adverb once two adjectives exists.(_I can't cite any reference for this is an original study_)


Actually the two *na*’s do not differ that much from each other. Both are linker of a modifier. Since there are two _na's _there would be at least two adjectives to which one modifies the other, that we can infer the latter is but an adverb not an adjective.


Anyway,



bdpalawan said:


> It is confusing to say that the letters ng (the bound linking form of na) has anything at all to do with the full WORD ng (pronounced "nang"). The linking na/-ng and the word ng are completely separate entities.
> 
> I also agree that the Rosetta phrase sounds artificial and unnatural. It's funny, too, because in American stores, the big question about bags is "paper or plastic." But paper bags are not used in the Philippines, so it's moot. The question might be "plastic (i.e. plastic bag) or karton (box)."


 
This is so true. Exception is in green for I have never been there.


----------

