# Si Jerom ay nakipagkita kay Naty...



## romelako

"Si Jerome ay nakipagkita kay Naty, *gaya ng kanyang pangako sa casual girlfriend*. '*Naty, kailangang maalis ko sa iyong system ang addiction mo sa akin*. Babawasan natin ang kasalanan sa mundo." 

Could I please get a translation of the text?  I can understand all the words, but I'm having a lot of trouble translating the bolded text.  Thanks in advanced.


----------



## DotterKat

"Si Jerome ay nakipagkita kay Naty, *gaya ng kanyang pangako sa casual girlfriend*. "*Naty, kailangang maalis ko sa iyong system ang addiction mo sa akin*. Babawasan natin ang kasalanan sa mundo." 

>>>>>>>>>>>

["*gaya ng kanyang pangako sa casual girlfriend*" is a descriptive (non-restrictive) clause -- it cannot stand alone, but can be removed without altering the meaning of the antecedent clause.]

My preferred translation would be:

Jerome met with his casual girlfriend Naty, *just as he promised her. "Naty, you have to get over me. *That will make two less sinners in the world.

A more literal translation is:

Jerome met with his casual girlfriend Naty, just as he promised her. "Naty, somehow I have to make you get rid of this addiction you have for me. In this way, there will be less sin in the world.

_casual girlfriend_: he is obviously less serious with the relationship than she is
_addiction mo sa akin_: again, she seems to be obsessed with him, while he considers their relationship a mere fling


----------



## iggyca

Couple someone please explain the Nakipagkita. Would it be the same with nagkita instead?


----------



## niernier

iggyca said:


> Couple someone please explain the Nakipagkita. Would it be the same with nagkita instead?



It's because of the structure of the sentence. Notice that the translation is "Jerome *met with* (his casual girlfriend) Naty". Those verbs that involve two subjects equally, referred to as reciprocal verbs, do conjugate to nakipag.  The action is represented by both parties equally to, or with each other. Note also that nakipag is past tense.

I might add, if you want to use _nagkita_ instead, the sentence would have appeared like this:
"Nagkita sina Jerome at Naty."-> Jerome and Naty met.


----------



## iggyca

niernier said:


> It's because of the structure of the sentence. Notice that the translation is "Jerome *met with* (his casual girlfriend) Naty". Those verbs that involve two subjects equally, referred to as reciprocal verbs, do conjugate to nakipag.  The action is represented by both parties equally to, or with each other. Note also that nakipag is past tense.
> 
> I might add, if you want to use _nagkita_ instead, the sentence would have appeared like this:
> "Nagkita sina Jerome at Naty."-> Jerome and Naty met.



Si Jerome nakipagkain kay Naty - Jerome ate with Naty

Gusto ko makipagkain kay Mike - I want to eat with Mike
(How would you say with you. Would you not use kay because no name is mentioned?)
Gusto ko kumain tayo. 
Gusto ko  makipagkain sa iyo.

Thank you.


----------



## niernier

iggyca said:


> Si Jerome nakipagkain kay Naty - Jerome ate with Naty
> 
> Gusto ko makipagkain kay Mike - I want to eat with Mike
> (How would you say with you. Would you not use kay because no name is mentioned?)
> Gusto kong kumain tayo.  -> I want us to eat.
> Gusto ko  makipagkain sa iyo.
> 
> Thank you.



Makipagkain is wrong...The grammar is correct, but kain does not and will never conjugate to makipag. For learning purposes, a verb that could be used here is makipag-usap. 

Example:

Gusto kong makipag-usap kay Mike. -> I want to talk to Mike.

Gusto kong makipag-usap sa'yo -> I want to talk to you.

Gusto kong kumain kasama ni Mike. -> I want to eat with Mike.

Gusto kong kumain kasama mo. -> I want to eat with you.

Kumain si Jerome kasama ni Naty -> Jerome ate with Naty.

kasama ni Mike literally means "together with Mike" and kasama mo means "together with you".

So, you might question, why does kain do not conjugate to nakipag-? It's because it does not involve the element of reciprocity or interaction. Reciprocal verbs mean, "What I do to you, you do to me". Remember that a reciprocal verb is different from "doing together". Other examples are nakipaglaro(play with each other), nakipaghalikan(kiss with each other), nakipagsex(to have sex with each other), nakipagtulungan(to help each other)


----------



## iggyca

niernier said:


> Makipagkain is wrong...The grammar is correct, but kain does not and will never conjugate to makipag. For learning purposes, a verb that could be used here is makipag-usap.
> 
> Example:
> 
> Gusto kong makipag-usap kay Mike. -> I want to talk to Mike.
> 
> Gusto kong makipag-usap sa'yo -> I want to talk to you.
> 
> Gusto kong kumain kasama ni Mike. -> I want to eat with Mike.
> 
> Gusto kong kumain kasama mo. -> I want to eat with you.
> 
> Kumain si Jerome kasama ni Naty -> Jerome ate with Naty.
> 
> kasama ni Mike literally means "together with Mike" and kasama mo means "together with you".
> 
> So, you might question, why does kain do not conjugate to nakipag-? It's because it does not involve the element of reciprocity or interaction. Reciprocal verbs mean, "What I do to you, you do to me". Remember that a reciprocal verb is different from "doing together". Other examples are nakipaglaro(play with each other), nakipaghalikan(kiss with each other), nakipagsex(to have sex with each other), nakipagtulungan(to help each other)



Thank you very much. This clears it up 100%.


----------

