# Nakita ko sila ni Jaun



## Inglip

I was reading through my grammar book on basicly, the word 'and/at'

I came across this sentence and it is a car crash for me 

'Nakita ko sila ni Jaun'

It is supposedly - I saw him and Jaun

I do understand why 'at' is not included, and why the plural is used, when the singular is the meaning. And I especially not understand why it is 'ni Jaun' and and 'si Jaun' 

If him and Jaun are the objects, why are they both got opposite forms? 

This sentence has both Ni and Ko, which makes it confusing who is acting on the verb.

Can anyone explain the structure of this sentence?


----------



## Cake.

This is one of those odd tics that languages have.

Basically, saying _nakita ko sila ni Juan_ connotes that you saw them and they were together. The sentence you were thinking, _nakita ko siya at si Juan_, is also grammatically correct but implies that you saw them both separately or if you saw them both at the same time, they were not together.

So saying that, a more understandable translation would be "I saw him and Juan together". Still this would only be essential if it was taken out of context because I think it would've been a given otherwise.


----------



## Inglip

Thanks. But I am still soooo confused. 

So if the word 'at' is omitted, then it means that the things where done together? 

But why is _'him' _*-singular* implied, but the word used is _'sila' - _*plural*?

Also, wouldn't this sentence also be correct, and mean the same thing? - Nakita ni Jaun ko at sila.
I am saying that because _Jaun_ appears in *ni *form, but Jaun is not the actor. Why is that?


----------



## Cake.

Omitting "_at_" does not indicate togetherness. Think of it as one of those unique exceptions in English. There are no rules, or rather, regardless of the rules, that is just how they are written/said.

If you're going to translate the sentences by the word, you will have problems. "_Nakita ko sila ni _Juan_"_ would then be "I saw them of Juan". That being said, you do need to be reasonably proficient in both languages to translate entire phrases at a time.

On the above, "_sila_" shouldn't be translated on its own. Translating "_sila ni _Juan" instead as a phrase and as a concept is the correct way to do so. Like I said earlier, "_sila ni _Juan" conceptually means two people together where one of which is Juan. Juan is not the actor but that is the syntax when identifying a person in a pair that's together.

And lastly, "_nakita ni_ Juan _ko at sila_" is grammatically incorrect. Another way to say "I saw him and Juan together" would be "_nakita ko siya at si_ Juan _na magkasama_". The word "together" is integral here. Without the word "together" or without a context, "I saw him and Juan" would be translated as "_nakita ko siya at si_ Juan" which has a different meaning from "_nakita ko sila ni_ Juan". When context is absent, the English "I saw him and Juan" just doesn't have the implication of togetherness that the Filipino "_nakita ko sila ni_ Juan" has.


----------



## Inglip

Oh, I get it, thank you.


----------



## mataripis

the usual way to answer this question " where are juan and jaun?"  and someone answered; "Nakita ko sila ni jaun!"


----------

