# hindi magkaroon



## Qcumber

*Hindî magkaroón*

Is there a difference between these two sentences?

1) She had no winter clothes when she arrived. 
1a) *Walâ siyáng damít na pantaglamíg nang siyá'y dumatíng.*
1b) *Hindî siyá nagkaroón ng damít na pantaglamíg nang dumatíng.*

Ditto
2) There was no water in the well.
2a) *Waláng túbig sa balón.*
2b) *Hindî nagkaroón ng túbig sa balón.*


----------



## sean de lier

*Hindî magkaroón = *is not able to have.

Is there a difference between these two sentences?
_To me, there seems to be a difference, albeit subtle...

_  1) She had no winter clothes when she arrived. 
 1a) *Walâ siyáng damít na pantaglamíg nang dumatíng.
*        = She had no winter clothes when (subject?) arrived. 
1b) *Hindî nagkaroón ng damít na pantaglamíg nang dumatíng.*
        = was not able to have winter clothes when (subject missing) arrived. The subject is missing in the sentence. Proper constructioncould be: _Hindi siya nagkaroon ng damit pantaglamig nang siya ay dumating. _[note that here, the subordinating conjunction *nang* signifies the beginning of a dependent clause, therefore a subject should be supplied in the clause. The subject of the dependent clause cannot be implied as there are two nouns in the sentence - _siya_ and _damit_.]

 Ditto
 2) There was no water in the well.
 2a) *Waláng túbig sa balón.
*        = There is no water in the well. 
2b) *Hindî nagkaroón ng túbig sa balón.*
        = was not able to have water in the well (subject missing)


----------



## Qcumber

sean de lier said:


> 1b) *Hindî nagkaroón ng damít na pantaglamíg nang dumatíng.*
> = was not able to have winter clothes when (subject missing) arrived. The subject is missing in the sentence. Proper constructioncould be: _Hindi siya nagkaroon ng damit pantaglamig nang siya ay dumating. _[note that here, the subordinating conjunction *nang* signifies the beginning of a dependent clause, therefore a subject should be supplied in the clause. The subject of the dependent clause cannot be implied as there are two nouns in the sentence - _siya_ and _damit_.]


Yes, you are right, I forgot the subject in this sentence. A silly mistake. Thanks a lot. I have corrected my initial post accordingly.


----------



## Qcumber

sean de lier said:


> 2) There was no water in the well.
> 2a) *Waláng túbig sa balón.*
> = There is no water in the well.
> 2b) *Hindî nagkaroón ng túbig sa balón.*
> = was not able to have water in the well (subject missing)


 
Subject missing? What do you mean? I don't understand. There is no such thing as an impersonal pronoun in this type of Tagalog sentence.


----------



## sean de lier

Qcumber said:


> Subject missing? What do you mean? I don't understand. There is no such thing as an impersonal pronoun in this type of Tagalog sentence.


Ah ok. Sentence 2b is somewhat awkward in Tagalog , though I can easily determine that it means "The well was not able to have any water". However, sentence 2b has _sa_ (=in), so the sentence technically lacks a subject. "The well was not able to have any water" would be translated more correctly as _Hindi nagkaroon ng tubig ang balon_, using _ang_ (=the) instead.


----------



## Qcumber

sean de lier said:


> "The well was not able to have any water". However, sentence 2b has _sa_ (=in), so the sentence technically lacks a subject. "The well was not able to have any water" would be translated more correctly as _Hindi nagkaroon ng tubig ang balon_, using _ang_ (=the) instead.


Doesn't the original sentence mean: "There is no water in the well." ?
Why do you use "able to"? _Magkaroón _only means "to have" in possessive clauses and "there to be" in existential clauses, at least according to dictionaries and grammars.
Has it taken on a new meaning?
I must confess I am quite puzzled by your explanations, Sean de Lier. I hope you are not pulling my leg.


----------



## sean de lier

Qcumber said:


> Doesn't the original sentence mean: "There is no water in the well." ?
> Why do you use "able to"? _Magkaroón _only mean "to have" in possessive clauses and "there to be" in existential clauses, at least according to dictionaries and grammars.
> Has it taken on a new meaning?
> I must confess I am quite puzzled by your explanations, Sean de Lier. I hope you are not pulling my leg.


_Hindi nagkaroon ng tubig sa balon_ does not mean "The well does not have water", at least in the strictest sense. For me there seems to be a subtle difference. _Walang tubig sa balon_ is a statement the fact that the well has no water; _Hindi nagkaroon ng tubig sa balon_ is a statement that an event you are anticipating (that the well will have water) did not happen.

I am taking _magkaroon _in that sentence as a verb (=to have). Perhaps that's why we are getting confused.

I think what we commonly use for existential clauses is _mayroon_ (usually shortened to _meron_): _Mayroong saging dito _(=There is a banana here); _Mayroon akong pera_ (=I have money). _Wala_ is used for the opposite: _Walang saging _dito (=There is no banana here); _Wala akong pera_ (=I have no money).

Hope it helps.


----------



## Qcumber

sean de lier said:


> I think what we commonly use for existential clauses is _mayroon_ (usually shortened to _meron_): _Mayroong saging dito _(=There is a banana here); [...] _Wala_ is used for the opposite: _Walang saging _dito (=There is no banana here)


You mean you wouldn't use the verb _magakaroón / hindî magkaroón_ in existential clauses, but only _may(roóng) / waláng_ instead. This would mean current usage has limited the verb to possessive clauses.
This is interesting.Thanks a lot.


----------

