# to introduce somebody to somebody



## Nino83

Hello everyone.

After reading this thread, I found that the verb _to introduce_ is derived from the base _kilala_ (know), plus the _magpa-_ or _ipa-_ affixes, so it literaly means _to make somebody know somebody_. 

Patient trigger:
_Ipapakilala ko *ikaw* sa kanya_ = _I'll introduce you to him/her
P*in*apakilala ko *ikaw* sa kanya_ = _I introduce/I'm introducing you to him/her_.

Actor trigger:
_*Mag*papakilala mo *ako* sa kanya_ = _I'll introduce you to him/her_.
_*Nag*papakilala mo *ako* sa kanya_ = _I introduce/I'm introducing you to him/her_.

Can this verb be used with a directional trigger, if, for example, one wants to highlight _sa kanya_, writing it as _siya_?


----------



## DotterKat

Most Tagalog speakers would use the composite pronoun _kita_ in place of ko ikaw.  _Kita_ is the combination of the first person singular ng personal pronoun _ko_ and the second person ang personal pronoun ikaw / ka. Recall that the ng personal pronun ko is not in focus and that the ikaw / ka ang personal pronun is in focus. This is indeed the case in your object-focus (or as you refer to it, patient trigger) sentence.


Nino83 said:


> Patient trigger:
> _Ipapakilala ko _*ikaw*_ sa kanya __more fluently rendered as _Ipapakilala *kita* sa kaniya_._ = _I'll introduce you to him/her
> P_*in*_apakilala ko _*ikaw*_ sa kanya __more fluently rendered as _Pinapakilala *kita* sa kaniya. = _I introduce/I'm introducing you to him/her_.





Nino83 said:


> Actor trigger:
> _*Mag*papakilala mo *ako* sa kanya_ = _I'll introduce you to him/her_.
> _*Nag*papakilala mo *ako* sa kanya_ = _I introduce/I'm introducing you to him/her_.


These sentence are incorrect. Remember that actor-focus sentences, as the term implies, have the doer or actor of the sentence as the focus of the sentence.  Thus the verb magpapakilala points to ako as the focus. The non-focused ng pronoun mo cannot be used for this sentence. Any of the ang pronouns, which are the focus of the sentence, can be used with magpapakilala (_magpapakilala ako / ka / siya / kami / tayo / kayo /sila_).  The only other possibility which combines the speaker and the interlocutor in one pronoun that is in focus is the obsolescent _kata_ (magpapakilala kata = we are going to introduce ourselves). However, kata is almost never used in current common parlance.

Thus the correct forms are:

Magpapakilala ako sa kaniya (actor-focus, contemplated aspect). I will introduce myself to him / her.

Pinapakilala kita sa kaniya (object-focus, uncompleted aspect). I am introducing you to him / her.

Ipapakilala kita sa kaniya (object-focus, contemplated aspect). I will introduce you to him / her.


Nino83 said:


> Can this verb be used with a directional trigger, if, for example, one wants to highlight _sa kanya_, writing it as _siya_?


No.
The directional-focus suffix _-an_ or _-han_ cannot be used in the context of any of your sentences, all of which imply the speaker introducing the interlocutor to a third person which would require only either the actor or object focus verbs. Solely as a hypothetical grammatical exercise one could come up with _Pakikilalahanan kita sa kaniya_. One who is new to Tagalog grammar might judge this last sentence as structurally sound, but it is very semantically challenged. _Pakikilalahanan kita sa kaniya_ is not at all a form used in current common parlance. In fact, the only situation in which the suffix -han would be used with kilala would be in a reciprocal-focus sentence (_Nagkakilalahanan sila_. They got to know each other), but even that is not very commonly used. One would more commonly say _Nakipagkilala sila_ or _Nagkakilala sila _(though a more advanced reading of Tagalog will reveal a slight difference in nuance between nakipagkilala and nagkakilala).


----------



## Nino83

Thank you very much DotterKat. 
So the Tagalog and Western Austronesian voice system is different from that of other language families. 
For example, if the verb "to introduce" can take two arguments in the active voice it can take two arguments in the passive voice (in Indo-European languages, Turkish, Japanese) while it seems that in Tagalog some verbs can take two arguments only in the patient focus but only one in the actor focus. 
It seems that the voice system has some restriction from a semantic point of view. Is it so?


----------



## DotterKat

The voice system as it applies to the Indo-European family of languages, particularly English, is not fully adequate for Tagalog in which the verbal system revolves around focus. Verbal focus definitely makes Tagalog more complicated and in many instances, more deeply nuanced. Thus, I do agree that the voice system is limited in illuminating the semantic nuances of Tagalog since comparisons between English and Tagalog texts based on the voice of the former and the focus of the latter will be inexact.

Regarding linguistic arguments, Tagalog can take multiple arguments in either the actor or object focus.  Scrutinized as to arguments, the sentence _Magpapakilala ako sa kaniya_  contains the predicate _magpapakilala_ and the two arguments _ako_ and_ kaniya_.  One could posit that _kaniya_ is an optional argument since its omission does not render _Magpapakilala ako_ unacceptable, but it certainly changes the meaning.  Distinguishing an argument from an adjunct can be tricky, but the sentence _Magapapkilala ako sa kaniya_ clearly contains two arguments.  For comparison, _Magpapakilala ako sa kaniya bukas_ has a predicate, two arguments and one adjunct.


----------



## Nino83

DotterKat said:


> he sentence _Magapapkilala ako sa kaniya_ clearly contains two arguments


Exactly.
The sentence _Ipapakilala kita sa kaniya_ contains *three* arguments (actor, patient and goal or indirect object) but the sentence with _Magpapakilala_ cannot contain three arguments, but only *two*.

Are there many verbs in Tagalog that take three argument in one voice and two arguments in another voice, or verbs that take two arguments in one voice and only one in another voice (i.e verbs that are transitive in one voice and intransitive in another voice)?

Another question: is the following sentence correct?
_Ipapakilala ko siya sa iyo_. I'll introduce him/her to you.


----------



## DotterKat

Nino83 said:


> The sentence _Ipapakilala kita sa kaniya_ contains *three* arguments (actor, patient and goal or indirect object) but the sentence with _Magpapakilala_ cannot contain three arguments, but only *two*.


The actor focus can contain more than two arguments. Magpapakilala ako sa kaniya at sa kanila (predicate and three arguments).


Nino83 said:


> Are there many verbs in Tagalog that take three argument in one voice and two arguments in another voice, or verbs that take two arguments in one voice and only one in another voice (i.e verbs that are transitive in one voice and intransitive in another voice)?


I would say it occurs with the same frequency as in English. 
Kumain siya. Kinain niya ang isda. 
Umupo siya. Inupuan niya ang silya.
Magbibigay ako ng pera. Magbibigay ako ng pera sa kaniya. Ibibigay ko ang pera. Ibibigay ko ang pera sa kaniya.



Nino83 said:


> Another question: is the following sentence correct?
> _Ipapakilala ko siya sa iyo_. I'll introduce him/her to you.


Yes, it is correct.


----------



## Nino83

DotterKat said:


> Magpapakilala *ako* *sa kaniya at sa kanila* (predicate and three arguments).


This one looks like it has *two* arguments, an _ang_ argument and a _sa_ argument (two nouns with the conjunction _at_).
Like in _*I* invited *John and Ana*_ (two arguments) or _*I* gave *the book* *to John and Ana*_ (three arguments, not four). 
I.e in English (and in many other languages) it is possible to say _*I* introduced *him* *to John and Ana*_ and _*he* was introduced *to John and Ana* *by me*_ while, as far as I understood by your explanations, one can say _Ipapakilala *ko* *siya* *kay John at kay Ana*_ but not _Magpapakilala *ako* *niya* *kay John at kay Ana*_.  

Other examples:
_*(Io) Ho* presentato *Pat* *a John e ad Ana*. *Pat* è stato presentato *a John e ad Ana* *da me*._ (Italian, active and passive)
_*Watashi wa Pat o John to Ana ni* shōkai shita. *Pat wa watashi ni yotte John to Ana ni* shōkai sareta._ (Japanese, active and passive)

In other words, if a verb *can* take three arguments (actor, patient and recipient), in other languages (English, Italian, Japanese and many other ones) it can take three arguments in both active and passive voice, while in Tagalog, often the verb *cannot* take the same number of arguments (ang, ng, sa) in both actor focus and object focus.


----------



## DotterKat

No matter how you slice it, I clearly see three arguments since both arguments in the clause pass the relative clause diagnostic. Other variations would still satisfy the diagnostic (Magpapakilala ako sa kaniya sa bahay. Magpapakilala ako sa kaniya at pagkatapos, kay Pedro).
One cannot draw equivalencies between languages and expect, much less insist, that the rungs of the ladder diagram align. It simply does not work that way and to assert that it should is sophomoric.
In the end we have a sentence, in a language not our own, that we both comprehend and is that not the point of communication? Far beyond that is the syntax tree chock-full of twittering linguists who argue over what constitutes a branch or a twig.


----------



## Nino83

DotterKat said:


> I clearly see three arguments since both arguments in the clause pass the relative clause diagnostic. Other variations would still satisfy the diagnostic (Magpapakilala ako sa kaniya sa bahay. Magpapakilala ako sa kaniya at pagkatapos, kay Pedro)


Thank you very much for answering.
Seeing these two examples, it is clear that the verb _magpakilala_ takes three arguments, one _ang_ and two different _sa_ arguments.
Probably this was the fact that led me to the wrong conclusion. I expected that a ditransitive verb in the actor focus should take three _differently marked_ arguments (i.e _ang, ng_ and _sa_), while there are ditransitive verbs taking two _sa_ arguments.


----------

