# Mahal ng lalaki ang babae or Minamahal ng lalaki ang babae



## daviddem

Both seem to translate to "a/the man loves the woman"

I can see that the second form is a verbal sentence, with minamahal being the directional focus incompleted aspect form of the root mahal.

But what in the world is the status of "mahal" in the first sentence?? That can't be a verb, can it? Looks like an adjective to me, that would mean "being loved" or "dear"?

edit: I think I found a clue, if someone could confirm? Some roots can  be used as regular verbs:  http://learningtagalog.com/grammar/verbs/roots_used_as_verbs.html


----------



## Maginoo

Yeah, apparently the verb root is sometimes used informally instead of the conjugated form of the verb.  I think I remember seeing that written down somewhere, I'll see if I can locate it.  

I asked my Tagalog teacher essentially the same question, and she said the sentence with minamahal is also correct, but sounds much more formal or poetic (sounds like José Rizal speaking, as she put it).

Another example (from Conversation Tagalog, Alejandro, p. 19):

Kilala mo ba ang alkalde?  Do you know the mayor?

Here the verb root kilala is being used instead of the conjugated form (incompleted aspect/imperfective/present tense) nakikilala which you might expect in this context.


----------



## DotterKat

Yes, one can use the verbal root in a simple declarative or interrogative sentence that describes a completed aspect of the action:

Hawak mo ang libro. Hawak mo ba ang libro?
Bukas ang pinto. Bukas ba ang pinto?
Sunog ang bahay. Sunog ba ang bahay?
Mahal mo siya. Mahal mo ba siya?
Kilala mo siya. Kilala mo ba siya?

One would not use nakikilala (imperfective aspect) because that implies no time boundaries or an on-going process. It is the difference between _Kilala mo ba siya?_ (Do you know him?) and _Nakikilala mo ba siya?_ (Are in the process of knowing him / recognizing him / identifying him?)


----------



## Maginoo

So it's not just an informal contraction of a longer form.  It almost seems like what you're describing is a fourth (tense/aspect) -- a situation that exists in the present as a result of a process that happened in the past.  Also, all of the verb forms in these examples are object focus.

The link in the OP gave examples with seven different verbs, and you've given us a few more above.  I wonder, can all object focus verbs be used this way?

As a side note, the Wolff/Centeno/Rau book says on p. 115 that "The root alone can be used as an imperative for -um- and mag- (but not for maN-) verbs, if it is first in the sentence" and gives these examples:

Tuloy (=tumuloy) ho muna kayo.  Please come in.
Pasensiya (=magpasensiya) na kayo.  Please be patient.
Kain (=kumain) na tayo.  Let's eat.

The Schachter/Otanes book says essentially the same thing on p. 403.  They call the verb root an "unaffixed verb base" and say that they can be used for "immediate imperatives", giving as examples some 1-2 word sentences:

Alis (na)!  Leave!
Bili (na)!  Buy (some)!

...etc.

I'm still looking for a rule in one of my books that would account for the use of the verb root alone in non-imperative sentences such as the ones given earlier in this thread.

A few more clues:  Wolff/Centeno/Rau has a somewhat confusing (to me) discussion of unaffixed verbs in Sec 23.32, p. 1130 that seems to support my idea that they express a present endpoint of a process that was ongoing in the past.  Two examples they give:

Bago siyang dating rito.  He has just arrived here.  (dating instead of dumating or kadarating)
Bagong labas siya sa ospital.  She has just gotten out of the hospital.

Also in Sec. 23.37, p.1134, they say that "In story-telling styles there is a tendency to drop active verb affixes in contexts where the action is vivid and the time or kind of action has been made clear" and give a few more examples.


----------



## daviddem

I have not had any luck so far finding a rule or complete list of verbs that can be used in this manner, other than the link I added in my OP. I've been searching in the Schachter book but no luck so far. However I just found a paper by some linguist mentioning this. It seems that there is indeed a small number of verbs which occur without focus and aspect (as their base) in the verbal predicate position, and these are basically deemed "an exception that does not make much sense", if I properly understand the jargon. See here, p25, section 5, second paragraph. There are references to other authors, so I might dig a little further tomorrow.


----------



## Maginoo

Good find.  I guess it's comforting in a way that the academics seem to be as confused about this situation as we are.  Probably the thing to do for now is to just keep collecting examples of the bare-root phenomenon in actual usage, and then try to come up with rules at some later date.


----------

