# Does Filipino have the ordinary SV(O/C) constructions?



## kimko_379

1. I hear that Filipino word orders are usually  Predicates+Subjects.  But are there also Subjects/Topics+Predicates word orders in the language? 

2. Are there in Filipino
Topicalizations like:  John, she telephoned/visited.
Left dislocations like:  John, she TELEPHONED him, not visited him.
when the subjects are presuppositions?  The above "John"s are so-called semantic/psychological subjects and presuppositions.  The question 1. includes such subjects.

3. Chinese has,   e.g.:
Shin lai le. = The letter has come.
Lai shin le. = A letter has come.  Ecco una lettera!
Is there the same or similar presupposition/focus subjects realization rule in Filipino too?


----------



## DotterKat

kimko_379 said:


> 1. I hear that Filipino word orders are usually  Predicates+Subjects.  But are there also Subjects/Topics+Predicates word orders in the language?


Yes.
In English the construction is normally S-V-O, with an exception for interrogatives when V precedes S.
In Tagalog, V can come before or after S in ordinary construction.
The critical difference is the use of verbal focus in Tagalog. Thus, equivalencies will never be exact and an attempt at direct translation will result in unconventional sentences in both directions.

_Ikaw ay nagtanong_.  You asked.
_Nagtanong ka._  "Asked, you did." 

_Kinuha mo ito. _ "Got this, you did."
_Ito ay kinuha mo._  "This you got." 
_"Ikaw ay kumuha nito."_  You got this.




kimko_379 said:


> 2. Are there in Filipino
> Topicalizations like:  John, she telephoned/visited.
> Left dislocations like:  John, she TELEPHONED him, not visited him.
> when the subjects are presuppositions?  The above "John"s are so-called semantic/psychological subjects and presuppositions.  The question 1. includes such subjects.


Yes.
Again, equivalencies are never exact. From your English text, the Tagalog translation will require the _ang / si _markers.  _Ang_ marks the focus of a sentence with the exception of proper nouns in which case _si_ is used.

John, she telephoned. _Si John, tinawagan niya._
John, she telephoned him, not visited him. _Si John ay kaniyang tinawagan at hindi pinuntahan._



kimko_379 said:


> 3. Chinese has,   e.g.:
> Shin lai le. = The letter has come.
> Lai shin le. = A letter has come.  Ecco una lettera!
> Is there the same or similar presupposition/focus subjects realization rule in Filipino too?


Yes.
Once more, the _ang_ marker will be needed for your first sentence which refers to a specific letter that has arrived.  In the second sentence in which a non-specific letter arrived, the _may_ indefinite phrase construction is needed.

_Ang sulat ay dumating_. The letter has come.
_May sulat na dumating_. A letter has come.


----------



## kimko_379

Thank you so much for your kind answer! 

But haven't you mistaken "presuppositions/focuses" for "definite/indefinite"?:  "Lai shin le./The letter has come." show that "The presupposed/afore-mentioned letter has come." unless "THE letter" gets a special prominence/stress, meaning "It is THE letter that has come."  If that is true, doesn't "ang" reveal presupposition-ness on the contrary?:  "Ako ang nag-bigay ng laruan kay Rey." (I, not other persons, gave Rey the toy.  It is me that gave Rey the toy.) shows that "Someone gave Ray the toy." is presupposed, and the predicate gets "ang," isn't that correct?  But I was wondering if you would possibly demonstrate examples of the above-mentioned extraordinary stress/prominence on "ang"-phrases.

And judging from the Japanese translations of Tagalog sentences using "wa"/"ga" (presupposition/focus markers),
"si" seems to be used in both cases of presupposition and focus subjects or nominatives and mean only proper-noun nominative-ness, but am I wrong?


----------



## DotterKat

kimko_379 said:


> Thank you so much for your kind answer!
> But haven't you mistaken "presuppositions/focuses" for "definite/indefinite"?:  "Lai shin le./The letter has come." show that "The presupposed/afore-mentioned letter has come." unless "THE letter" gets a special prominence/stress, meaning "It is THE letter that has come."  If that is true, doesn't "ang" reveal presupposition-ness on the contrary?: "Ako ang nag-bigay ng laruan kay Rey." (I, not other persons, gave Rey the toy.  It is me that gave Rey the toy.) shows that "Someone gave Ray the toy." is presupposed, and the predicate gets "ang," isn't that correct?  But I was wondering if you would possibly demonstrate examples of the above-mentioned extraordinary stress/prominence on "ang"-phrases.


_Ang_ does mark the focus of the sentence and thus will indicate the presupposed subject as indicated in previous lines of text that are not revealed.
This will remain true even if you invert the sentence Ako ang nagbigay ng laruan = Ang nagbigay ng laruan ay ako.



kimko_379 said:


> And judging from the Japanese translations of Tagalog sentences using "wa"/"ga" (presupposition/focus markers),
> "si" seems to be used in both cases of presupposition and focus subjects or nominatives and mean only proper-noun nominative-ness, but am I wrong?


Yes, presupposed or otherwise, _si_ points to a proper noun as the focus while _ang_ points to a common noun as the focus.


----------



## wynbennet

If I'm not mistaken, you are pertaining to the rules and uses of "simuno" and "panaguri" as part of the sentence, right?


----------



## kimko_379

wynbennet said:


> If I'm not mistaken, you are pertaining to the rules and uses of "simuno" and "panaguri" as part of the sentence, right?


I regret to confess that I am a total Tagalog novice/outsider and fail to make head or tail out of your question; excuse me, but what are "simuno" and "panaguri"?
Anyway, my furthur study has informed me that "ang" shows definite-ness and "si" proper-noun-ness; I just have had to correct my previous postings so; I apologize for the mistakes, everyone.


----------

