# mapa- verbs



## Qcumber

Here is a sentence taken from a book.
1) Napasigáw si Ben sa kanyáng nabása sa diyáryo.
= Ben shrieked at what he read in the paper.

What is the corresponding verbal form in the question on the cause for Ben's shrieking?
My try:

2) Anó ang nakapasigáw kay Ben?
= What made Ben shriek?


----------



## endl3ss

Qcumber said:


> 2) Anó ang nakapasigáw kay Ben?
> = What made Ben shriek?



*"nakapasigaw*" is a wrong word it must be "*nakapag-pasigaw*"

2.) Anó ang *nakapag-pasigáw* kay Ben?

^____^...


----------



## Qcumber

endl3ss said:


> *"nakapasigaw*" is a wrong word it must be "*nakapag-pasigaw*"
> 2.) Anó ang *nakapag-pasigáw* kay Ben?


Interesting. Thanks for the correction, Endless.

I can see *makapagpasigáw* is derived from *magpasigáw ang [cause] kay Ben. *Now, the latter's corresponding form when the process is focused on Ben is *pasigawín si Ben* > *pinasigáw si Ben*

In the text, it is not *pinasigáw* that is used, but *napasigáw*, probably because an article in a newspaper has no will power of itself. Therefore there should exist a corresponding form focused on [cause], and this form should be *makapasigáw > nakapasigáw.*
From your remark, it doesn't exist, or did you just mean *nakapasigáw *doesn't fit the question?
Now, if it does exist in other contexts, could you give an example?


----------



## endl3ss

The word *nakapasigaw* is wrong, cause there's no such word like that if im not mistaken, It must be *napasigaw* you must remove "ka" or *nakapagpasigaw , sumigaw* etc... I can't give an example using *nakapasigaw* cause wrong...^__^


----------



## Qcumber

endl3ss said:


> The word *nakapasigaw* is wrong, cause there's no such word like that if im not mistaken, It must be *napasigaw* you must remove "ka" or *nakapagpasigaw , sumigaw* etc... I can't give an example using *nakapasigaw* cause wrong...^__^


Your answer is interesting because either there is a gap in the system - which happens more often than not in languages - or I misinterpreted the nature of the verb *mapasigáw*. I'll have to think about it, and analyse other occurences of mapa- verbs.
Thanks a lot, Endless.


----------



## endl3ss

No problem^____^


----------



## Qcumber

Now that I think of it ...
If 

1) Anó ang nakapagpasigáw sa bátà? = What made the child shriek?

is correct

then there should exist a napagpa- verbal form focused on bátà

2) Napagpasigáw ang bátà ng [nang] halímaw. = The child was made to cry by the beast.


----------



## endl3ss

> 2) Napagpasigáw ang bátà ng [nang] halímaw.



It must be...
2.) Napasigaw ang bata ng halimaw = The child was made to cry by the monster/beast


----------



## Qcumber

endl3ss said:


> It must be...
> 2.) Napasigaw ang bata ng halimaw = The child was made to cry by the monster/beast


So, there is a double gap, the makapagpa- verb has no  mapagpa- form,
and the mapa- verb has no makapa- form. A very interesting case of system gaps. Now I have to find the reason such gaps exist. 

Another point. Why do you use _ng _[nang] before _halímaw_?
If we take as a model the sentence from the book, 

Napasigáw si Ben sa kanyáng nabása sa diyáryo.
= Ben shrieked at what he read in the paper.

your sentence may be rephrased as
Napasigáw ang bátà sa halímaw.


----------



## tanzhang

ng is used in NOUN, PRONOUN
 nang is in VERB, ADVERB, and ADJECTIVE.


----------



## Qcumber

tanzhang said:


> ng is used in NOUN, PRONOUN
> nang is in VERB, ADVERB, and ADJECTIVE.


Thank you. 
BTW do you have an answer to my question?


----------



## youtin

This might help :

Napasigaw ang bata ng halimaw.
~ The monster made the child shriek.

Napasigaw ang bata sa halimaw.
~ Literally, the child shrieked because of the monster. (In other words, the child shrieked when he saw the monster.)

There is a slight shift in the emphasis of the doer of the action in both sentences. In the 1st, "halimaw" gets more emphasis, with the effect that the monster made the child shriek on purpose. It is even possible that the child being talked about is a very brave child who isn't afraid of monsters in general but was made to shriek by the cunning "halimaw".

In the 2nd, "bata" gets more emphasis. The child shrieks, but it may not have been the intention of the "halimaw". The effect is that the monster may just have casually passed by and the unsuspecting child shrieked at the sight. Moreover the use of "sa" with this kind of sentence usually denotes sudden reaction at the unexpected event.

I don't know if my long-winded explanation is understandable, or even if what I say is even 100% accurate, but that is how I use them ^^;


----------



## tanzhang

This is your question right?

Another point. Why do you use _ng _[nang] before _halímaw_?

 Napasigaw ang bata ng halimaw

the use of ng in this case is appropriate because the word halimaw is a noun.

ng - ginagamit na pang dugtong sa isang salita ngunit ito ay nauuna sa isang 
      bagay. 
      halimbawa (for example): 
          Kumuha ako ng Luya. 
          Pakikuha nga ng luya. 
          Bakit lalo kang pumangit ng ikaw ay nag pa facelift. 
 nang - ginagamit na pang dugtong sa isang salita pero ito ay nauuna sa isang kataga na nagsasaad ng paggawa. 
        halimabawa: 
          Bakit si Berftulfo nang magsuklay lalong pumangit. 
          Ang bantot naman ng silid na ito nang magpalabas ka ng mainit init na 
                  hangin mula sa iyong puwet.


----------



## Qcumber

youtin said:


> In the 1st, "halimaw" gets more emphasis. [...] In the 2nd, "bata" gets more emphasis.


Not at all, Youtin. It's not a long-winded explanation. This is exactly the sort of explanation I'm looking for. I'm very grateful for it.
So there is a certain degree of freedom as regards the replacement of *ng* [nang] by *sa:* you replace *ng* by *sa* when you want to shift emphasis on the doer (shrieker here).


----------

