# wala kang/wala mong.



## Inglip

I wrote a message to a friend and said - wala mong ginagawa sa trabaho mo. 

To mean, you're not doing anything at work. But she changed it to - wala kang ginagawa sa trabaho mo.

I'm not sure why, and her suggestion doesn't make much sense to me. Can some explain? 

Thanks


----------



## 082486

Your friend is right but I just don't know how to explain.
I just know that if you use "mong" its gramatically incorrect. 
hehe


----------



## Equinozio

That's because wala means "to have" in this case and ginagawa is a verb used as a noun, literally "something that is being done".

You say:
Wala kang salamin. = You don't have glasses.
Wala kang ginagawa. = You don't have "something-that-is-being-done". = You are not doing anything.

But you would say:
Ginagawa mo ba iyon? = Are you doing that?
(Is being done by you that?)


----------



## Equinozio

Here are more examples of may, wala etc. followed by a verb (used as a noun).
- Indicating Existence or Non-existence
- Indicating Possession or Non-possession


----------



## Inglip

Ahh, I see. Thanks.


----------



## DotterKat

The question was about the difference between two _ang_-conjugate pronoun forms, *mong* and *kang*.

*Mo* is a 2nd person, singular possessive pronoun referring  to _you_ (singular/possessive). *Mong* is the conjugate form of that same pronoun. *Ka* is a 2nd person, singular pronoun, also meaning you and that can only be used in the middle or end of a sentence (_ikaw_ is the pronoun to use at the beginning of a sentence). *Kang* is the conjugate form of that same pronoun.

_Wala mong ginagawa sa trabaho mo_ is wrong because mong is a possessive pronoun. Just as in English you would say _You are (You're) not doing anything in your job _and *not* Your (second person possessive adjective) not doing anything in your job. Review the difference between _you're_ and _your_. 

Though no exact equivalency exists between languages, think of _Wala mong._... as akin to _Your doing_ nothing....  (*incorrect* grammar) and _Wala kang_ .... as akin to _You are / You're_ doing nothing.... (*correct* grammar).

Finally, _ginagawa _as used in the sentence you gave is not a verb used as a noun. It is simply the verb/predicate of the sentence.

Wala (quantifier) kang (pronoun/subject) ginagawa (verb/predicate).


Constructed differently, it could become a noun as in:

Ang ginagawa mo ay walang kahulugan. [Again, there is no direct equivalent, but think of it as Your deeds are meaningless --- _deeds _now being the noun/subject denoting something that was done, and again _your_ is the second person possessive adjective.]


----------



## Inglip

Thanks!


----------



## Equinozio

DotterKat said:


> Wala (quantifier) kang (pronoun/subject) ginagawa (verb/predicate).


Maybe you would agree that in:

Walang ginagawa si John.
Predicate = Walang ginagawa
Subject = si John
(phrased differently: Si John ay walang ginagawa.)

In which case ginagawa means "something that is being done"? (i.e. a verb used as a noun)


----------



## mataripis

Inglip said:


> I wrote a message to a friend and said - wala mong ginagawa sa trabaho mo.
> 
> To mean, you're not doing anything at work. But she changed it to - wala kang ginagawa sa trabaho mo.
> 
> I'm not sure why, and her suggestion doesn't make much sense to me. Can some explain? This might be= 1.) Ano bang ginawa mo?   2.) Wala ka bang ginawa?
> 
> Thanks


----------



## DotterKat

Equinozio said:


> Maybe you would agree that in:
> 
> Walang ginagawa si John.
> Predicate = Walang ginagawa
> Subject = si John
> (phrased differently: Si John ay walang ginagawa.)
> 
> In which case ginagawa means "something that is being done"? (i.e. a verb used as a noun)




Which is precisely why I started with the premise "Finally, _ginagawa _*as used in the sentence you gave  *[referring to Inglip's post] is not a verb used as a noun." Altering the construction of the original sentence will of course yield a different analysis which, valid or not, has little to do with the question I was addressing.


----------



## latchiloya

It's because *wala *is nominative-negative. That it should be "_wala kang" _for *ka *is a nominative pronoun. As for *mong *since *mo *is possessive it is "_huwag mong" _for its negative.


----------

