Sa Simula Ang Salitang Ugat

Pagsusuri ng Kategorya ng mga Salitang Pilipino Resty Cena Universidad ng Pilipinas-Diliman Buod “Abstract” Tatlong pag-aaral ang gumanyak sa kasalukuyang pagsusuri. Una, ang mungkahi ni Foley (1998) na ang mga salitang ugat sa Pilipino ay “precategorial” o walang kategoryang panggramatika hanggat hindi sila nababanghay sa tinig “voice” (pandiwa at pangngalan lang ang sinuri ni Foley). Kung kaya’t ang salitang bilis, halimbawa, ay hindi pang-uri, o pandiwa, o pangngalan, o ano pa mang bahagi ng salita, samantalang ang bumilis ay pandiwa sapagkat may banghay. Ikalawa, ang mungkahi ni Himmelmann (1991) na hindi lang ang mga ugat ang pre-categorial kundi pati na ang mga buong salita, at, ikatlo, ang mungkahi ni Gil (1993) na iisa lang ang bukas na sintaktikang kategorya “open syntactic class” ng mga salita sa Pilipino (sa halip na apat: pangngalan, pang-uri, pandiwa, at pang-abay). Layunin ng pagtalakay na ito na ipakita na may mga kategoryang panggramatika ang mga salitang ugat at mga buong salita sa Pilipino. [Komentaryo: Hindi masamang buod ito, pero may isang malaking pagkukulang. Ang pangunahing layunin ng makaagham na pagsasaliksik ay hindi para ipakita lang na may pagkukulang ang pagsasaliksik ng iba. Halimbawang maipakita ng kasalukuyang mananaliksik na mayroon palang kategorying panggramatika ang mga salitang ugat sa Pilipino, na taliwas sa mungkahi ni Foley. So? Take the next step. Attempt to relate your findings to the broader issue. Ano ang masasabi ng bunga ng natuklasan mo tungkol sa sistemang tinig ng Pilipino, na siya ngang paksang tinalakay ni Foley]

Sa Simula, Ang Salitang Ugat [Komentaryo: A cute subtitle, but it appears to be out of place.]

Bakasin natin ang daang binaybay ni Foley na humantong sa kanyang mungkahi na “pre-categorial” ang mga salitang-ugat ng Pilipino.

Sa Ingles at sa marami pang wika, ang simuno ng pangungusap ay kailangang isa sa mga ubod na argumento “core arguments” ng pandiwa. Halimbawa:

(1)

Mga ubod na argumento Isa rito ang maaaring maging simuno | eat (actor, patient) location | Sabit na argument lang. Hindi puwedeng maging simuno.

Ubod ang argumento kung ang relasyon nito sa pandiwa ay direct, ibig sabihin, hindi pinamamagitan ng ibang salitang pangrelasyon tulad ng pang-ukol “preposition”. Halimbawa, sa unang pangungusap sa ibaba, ang dalawang ubod na argumento ng pandiwang ate ay fish at Ben. Hindi kabilang sa ubod na argumento ang restaurant. Maaring maging simuno ang isa sa dalawang ubod na argumento, tulad ng ipinakikita sa (2)(a) at (2)(b), pero hindi maaring gawing simuno ang hindi ubod na argumento na restaurant, tulad ng ipinakikita sa (2)(c). (2)

(a) Ben ate the fish at the restaurant. (b) The fish was eaten by Ben at the restaurant. (c) *The restaurant was eaten at the fish by Ben.

(Ang pangungusap na The restaurant was where the fish was eaten at by Ben, kung tinatanggap man, ay may karagdagang balangkas na hindi angkop sa usapan.) Sinasabing sa leksikon ang pandiwang eat ay may takda ng dalawang ubod na argumento, tulad ng ipinakikita sa (1). Sa mga katumbas na pangungusap sa Pilipino, hindi lang ang mga ubod na argumento ng pandiwa ang maaring maging simuno (“pivot” ang tawag ni Foley; susundin natin ang katawagang ito). Halimbawa, ang dalawang ubod na argumento ng pandiwang kain, Ben at isda, ay pivot sa (3)(a) at (3)(b), gaya nang inaasahan, pero ang sabit na argumentong restoran, na hindi nagiging simuno ng ate sa Ingles, ay nakatatayong pivot sa Pilipino, gaya ng ipinapakita sa (3)(c). Taliwas ang ugaling ito ng mga wikang Pilipino sa ugali ng maraming wika (3)

(a) Kumain si Ben ng isda sa restoran. (b) Kinain ni Ben ang isda sa restoran. (c) Kinainan ni Ben ng isda ang restoran.

At hindi lang ang lugar ng aksyon na tulad ng restoran sa (3)(c) ang nakatatayong simuno sa Pilipino. Pati benepisaryo ng aksyon, ang instrumento na ginamit sa aksyon, at ang dahilan ng aksyon ay tatlo pa sa mga sabit lang na argumento na maaring maging simuno, gaya nang ipinakikita sa mga halimbawa sa (4). (4)

(a) Ibinili ni Ben ng regalo si Ping [BENEPISARYO] sa pamamagitan ng Visa card ng Nanay dahil sa birthday nito. (b) Ipinangbili ni Ben ng regalo kay Ping ang Visa card ng Nanay [INSTRUMENTO] dahil sa birthday nito. (c) Ikinabili ni Ben ng regalo kay Ping sa pamamagitan ng Visa card ng Nanay ang birthday nito [DAHILAN]

(Medyo artipisyal ang mga halimbawa dahil gusto nating ipakita ang tatlong sabit na argumento sa isang pangungusap, pero matatag ang ipinakikitang balangkas.) Para kay Foley, kung gagawing ubod na argumento ang mga sabit na pariralang ito, tulad ng ipinakikita sa ibaba, masisira ang konsepto ng “argument structure” na matatag na konsepto sa maraming wika. (5)

kain (actor, patient, location, reason, benefactor, instrument)

Para maiwasang mawalan ng saysay ang konseptong argument structure, iminungkahi ni Foley na walang “argument structure” sa leksikon ang mga salitang-ugat ng Pilipino. Nagkakaroon ng argument structure ang mga salitang ugat kapag binanghay na sa Tinig. Halimbawa, ang banghay ng bili sa i- ay nagbibigay ng tatlong argumento: (6)

ibili (aktor, pasyente, benepisaryo)

At ang banghay sa –an ay may ganito namang argumento: (7)

bilihan (actor, pasyente, lugar)

Kasabay ng banghay sa Tinig ang pagpili ng pivot. Ang konklusyon ni Foley: Kung walang argument structure ang mga salitang ugat hanggat hindi nababanghay sa Tinig, walang batayan para ituring na magkaiba ang kategorya ng mga ugat na pandiwa at ugat na pangngalan. Pansinin na isang methodological necessity ang konklusyon ni Foley. Hindi siya

nagladlad ng mga data na diretsong nagpapatunay ng kawalan ng argument structure. [Komentaryo: Magandang punto na methodological necessity ang konklusyon. Ibig sabihin, mabigyan lang ng duda ang pangangailangan, duda na ang kalapatan ng konklusyon. Walang data na kailangang ipaliwanag.]

Mahalaga kay Foley ang tayong walang kategoryang gramatika ang mga salitang ugat. Kung tutuo ito, walang syntactic argument structure ang pandiwa. At sapagkat walang syntactic argument structure, walang orihinal na mga ubod na argumento. At kung wala nito, masasabing isang hakbang sa deribasyon ng pangungusap ang pagbuo ng argument structure. Sa bubuuing argument structure, isasama pati na ang alinman sa mga sabit na argumento kung ito ay tatayong simuno. Sa ganitong paraan, naisalba ni Foley ang ideya na ang pivot ay pinipili mula sa mga ubod na argumento. At sa ganito ring paraan, nabigyan ni Foley ng batayan ang kanyang haka-haka na naiiba sa lahat at katangi-tangi ang sistemang Tinig “voice system” ng mga WP. [Komentaryo: Hindi masamang balik-aral ito.]

[Now a description of the methodology of the current paper.]

Sa bahaging ito ng pagpapahayag, ipakikita na may mga kategoryang panggramatika ang mga salitang ugat. Titingnan natin ang iba’t ibang konstruksyon na gumagamit ng salitang ugat, at ipakikita na ang paglitaw o dipaglitaw ng salitang ugat sa gayong mga konstruksyon ay umaasa sa impormasyon tungkol sa kategoryang leksikal ng ugat. Pagkatapos, ipakikita natin na ang mga salitang ugat sa mga konstruksyong iyon ay tumatayong ulo ng parirala at ang mga kaganapan “complements” ng ulo ang argument structure nito. Gagamitin natin ang ating analysis para buhayin ang isang linya ng pag-iisip na tinanggihan ni Foley para ipaliwanag ang kanyang mga data, na sa gayong pagtanggi ay humantong siya sa kanyang konklusyon na may “symmetrical voice system” ang mga WP. Ipaliliwanag natin pamaya-maya ang ibig niyang sabihin sa symmetrical voice system. [The last point in the previous paragraph is a promise to relate the facts to a broader issue, that of the characterization of the voice system of Philippine languages. Ito ang hinanap natin na wala sa buod.]

Kategorya ng Salitang Ugat First, we define roots negatively: operationally any form that shows a functionindicating morphosyntactic element is not a root. By this definition the italicized words in the sentences below are not roots. The root forms are the bolded words in the second column. (8) (a) Mabilis si Ben. (the root bilis is adjectivalized via ma- prefixation) (b) Tumakbo si Ben. (the root takbo is verbalized via voice affixation) (c) Tuwang-tuwa si Ben. (the root tuwa is intensified via reduplication) (d) Sundalong-sundalo siya.(the root sundalo is intensified via reduplication) (e) Magtulog ka. (the root tulog is intensified via stress shift) (f) Takot si Ben. (the root takot is adjectivalized via stress shift) [The definition of root is appropriate, particularly in the light of example (f), where it appears to still be a root, but is not treated as a root in the paper since it has undergone some function changing process.]

Second, we head out already armed with a notion of the lexical category membership of roots – noun, verb, adjective. Such labeling is based on the traditional correlation of the semantic notions of event, entity, and property with verb, noun, and adjective. Such correlation can be supported using morphological information (de Guzman 1996). At issue is whether root and full words in the language belong to syntactic categories. As Himmelmann (1991) says, syntactic categories can only be established by syntactice means. If a class of words with a particular lexical category, and no others, performs a unique set of sentential functions , we say that the class of words form a syntactic category; we label that syntactic category after the lexical category of the words. We will use three sentential functions found in most languages: predication, modification, and reference. [Since the paper is about establishing the category of roots, isn’t it begging the issue to have a pre-notion of the lexical category of roots? No, because the issue is not the semantic or lexical category of roots, but their syntactic categories. Well, then, we need to know more about this issue. Why is it an issue? Is this the issue that Foley is concerned about?]

Roots in Sentential Positions Sa maraming mga wika, ang pandiwa, pang-uri, at pangngalan, kung mayroon nito ang isang wika, ay may karaniwang posisyong tinatayuan. Pandiwa ang karaniwang ulo ng pariralang panaguri, pang-uri ang ulo ng pariralang naglalarawan, at pangngalan naman ang ulo ng bagay na natutukoy at tumatayong reference ng nasabing bagay. Maglalahad tayo ng mga pangungusap na gumagamit ng mga salitang ugat sa lugar na karaniwang laan sa pandiwa (predication), laan sa pang-uri (modification), at sa pangngalan (reference). Predication Predication in Pilipino allows root words, specifically, predication allows heads that are noun roots, conditionally accepts adjective roots, but, surprisingly, totatally bars verb roots. (9)

(a) Panday si Ben. (b) *Takbo si Ben. (c) *Lakas si Ben.

(panday is a noun form) (cf. Tumakbo si Ben.) (cf. Malakas si Ben.)

That a sentential function like predication discriminates between unmarked roots on the basis of their semantic category immediately puts into question the precategorial view of roots. [Why is that so? You’re talking here of ‘semantic category’, not syntactic category, which you announced earlier as the issue.]

To appear in predicate position, verb roots and most classes of adjective roots must carry function-indicating morphosyntax. (10)

(a) Tumakbo ang aso. (b) Mabilis ang aso. (c) Takot ang aso. (d) Ihing-ihi na ang aso.

(voice affixation with -um- indicates verb) (ma- prefix indicates adjective) (stress shift to signal a change to adjective) (reduplication to show ‘eager’ mode of verb)

[I see that verb and adjective roots must be marked for parts of speech before they can appear in predication head. So?]

There is a class of affixless adjectives, and these adjective roots can appear in predicate position. They, in fact, reject the ma- adjectivalizer, as the examples in the second column show.

(11)

(a) Pikon si Ben. (b) Pangit ang palabas. (c) Pandak ang bahay.

With maadjectivalizer *mapikon *mapangit *mapandak

[Again, what is the relevance of these examples to the sub-issue you raised here that predication is sensitive to syntactic categories?]

While affixless verb forms may not appear in typical indicative sentences, they may appear in exhortative constructions, thus. (12)

(a) Takbo na kayo! (b) Kain na kayo. (c) Tulog na tayo. (d) Takbo!

[Ok, ok. Is this relevant?] Neither noun or adjective roots can predicate an exhortative construction, thus: (13)

(a) *Panday na kayo. (b) *Bilis na kayo. (c) *Pikon na kayo.

[Shall we get back to the main point? I’d like to see how predication does indeed require syntactic category.]

Not related to our present concern, it is nonetheless interesting that the inherent predicatability of nouns, and the lack of such property by the verb and (for the most part) adjective, suggests that the basic predicational sentence in Tagalog is of a nominal type. This is an analysis of the basic verbal clausal structure that has its proponents (Naylor 1980). [Footnote this.]

[Aha! Now come the obligatory ‘apparent counterexamples’. These are examples that appear to argue against the point being made, but, on closer examination, turn out to be supportive!]

At first glance, the following predicate roots may appear to belie the claim being made here that predication filters out non-noun words (with the exception of bare adjective roots). Thus, not only does it allow noun roots, as (14)(c) shows, but also verb roots (iyak in (14)(a)) and adjective roots (ganda in (14)(b)) that do not belong to the bare class. (14)

(a) Iyak ang isinalubong niya. (b) Ganda ang inaasam niya. (c) Anak ang ipinagkanulo niya.

However, the above are complex predications, in particular, iyak, ganda, and anak are clefted predicates from the sentences: (15)

(a) Isinalubong niya ang iyak. (b) Inaasam niya ang ganda. (c) Anak ang ipinagkanulo niya.

In these sentences, iyak, ganda, and anak function as themes, and are referential. So iyak and ganda are referential in (14); iyak does not express an event and ganda does not express an attribute. Only nouns in Pilipino may be clefted (Ricky Nolasco, pers. comm.) [Ok! So they are nouns, and the point is that only nouns appear as predicate head. Now I get the point of the apparently irrelevant examples above: that predication must discriminate among the lexical categories, otherwise it is useless as a test for categories. This should be made clear above. Predication is a syntactic process. Acknowledge sources of contributed ideas. Especially unpublished ideas, that is, personal communication. If you don’t, your colleagues will not like you, and they will stop discussing ideas with you.]

[Another set of apparent counterexamples is coming up.]

Reduced forms of stative verbs of senses also appear to belie the generalization that unmarked verbs may not appear as head of a predication. But they are clearly reduction of the longer forms shown in the right column below. (15)

(a) Kita si Ben. (b) Dinig si Ben (c) Alam si Ben.

(cf. Nakikita si Ben.) (cf. Nadidinig si Ben.) (cf. Nalalaman si Ben.)

[Finally, a set of true counterexamples. That is to say, nonnouns appearing as predication head. Don’t not mention counterexamples even if you can’t explain them away! Someone else will point them out, and then you have a coverup problem to do damage control on.]

Finally, color terms do appear to provide a set of examples where unmarked adjectives may appear as roots in predicate position. (16)

(a) Dilaw ang damit. (b) Itim ang langit. (c) Puti ang ulap. (d) Pula ang dugo. (e) Luntian ang dahon. (e) Bughaw ang dagat.

Madilaw ang damit. Maitim ang langit. Maputi ang ulap. Mapula ang dugo. *Maluntian ang dahon. *Mabughaw ang dagat.

While the root forms convey the colors in absolute terms, strangely, the maforms, as in the second column above, convey the colors in less than absolute terms. Thus, while the dress in Dilaw ang damit is yellow, it is merely yellowish in Madilaw ang damit. [The writer isn’t worried about this set of counterexamples. He feels confident that he has built his case, and that a set of half a dozen non-supportive especial words can be glossed over. He feels that he is saying something new and interesting, although he is not saying it very well at this point.] [A repeat of the findings and main points is good here.]

These examples show that for predication with root words to work properly, roots must carry some categorial information. Noun roots and a small class of adjective roots (bare adjectives and color terms) are immediately predicative, but verb roots and the vast majority of adjective roots must first acquire categorial

information derivationally to serve successfully as predicate. The lexicon must include roots, and root entries must include word class information. [But wait, there’s more argument.]

Reliance on lexical category information in predication can be further demonstrated when the unmarked roots undergo function morphosyntax. As expected, adjective roots undergo ma- prefixation, and verb roots express voice marking. Consider modality. Only verbs undergo modality morphosyntax, thus, (17)(a) below with a verb root can reduplicate to show continuative mode, but (17)(b) with an adjective root does not express this modality and panday nang panday in (17)(c), which expresses this modality, actually is a verbal expression; it is impossible to get a noun expression in this position and modality. (17)

(a) Dala nang dala si Ben ng basi kay Obet. (b) *Bilis nang bilis ang takbo ni Ben. (c) *Panday nang panday ng gulok si Ben.

Modification Adjective roots typically function as noun modifiers. But adjective roots (except again the morphologically unmarked variety) and verb roots may not appear in this construction in Pilipino. Nouns and bare adjective roots may do so. (18) (a) ang panday na *lakas (b) ang panday na *takbo (c) ang panday na pikon (d) ang panday na anak (ni Ben)

(cf. ang panday na malakas) (cf. ang panday na tumakbo) (bare adjectives may function as modifiers) (noun roots may function as modifiers)

In verb modification, unmarked nouns and adjectives immediately serve as modifiers. Verb modification requires marked ma-forms. (19) (a) Lumaking panday si Ben. (b) Lumaking pikon ang panday. (c) Lumaking *lakas ang panday. (d) Lumaking *sagot ang panday.

(noun as modification complement) (bare adject as modification) cf. Lumaking malakas ang panday cf. Lumaking sumasagot ang panday

Modification and predication behave similarly in this respect, suggesting that modification is embedded predication. The data shows that modification is another syntactic construction that relies on root category to function properly.

Exclamations The third type of sentential function often cited in the literature on word categories is referencing. Words that indicate references are considered as nouns. In Pilipino, the marker ang is considered to be a referentializing marker (Himmelmann 1991). Exclamations in Pilipino are introduced by the marker ang. The “pivot”, that is to say, the lexeme that the pivot marker ang introduces, can be a root word. And here, adjective roots, as expected, can be the pivot, but verb roots may also serve as pivot. Curiously, nouns may not serve as pivot in exclamations. (20)

(a) Ang bilis ng panday! (b) Ang pikon ng panday! (c) Ang takbo ng panday! (d) Ang *panday ni|si Ben!

(bilis is an adjective) (pikon is a bare adjective) (takbo is a verb) (panday is a noun)

(“Curiouser and curiouser,” as Alice would say. “First, event roots may not serve as predicates. Then attribute roots may not serve as modifiers. And now, entity roots may not appear in a referential position.”) Adjective roots in exclamations may be pluralized via duplication of the first syllable, confirming its adjective status, thus: (21) (a) Ang bibilis ng mga panday! (b) Ang pipikon naman ng mga dalaga!

(adjective roots may be pluralized) (bare adjectives may also be pluralized)

Verb roots don’t undergo this elaboration, as expected, since Tagalog verbs don’t show plurality, although they may show discontinuous, repetitive, or intense actions, thus (22)

(a) Ang *tatakbo ng panday! (b) Ang *iiyak ng panday!

If takbo and iyak in () are verb roots, as they seem to be, what are they in the following sentences: (23)

(a) Ang bilis ng takbo ng panday! (b) Ang lakas ng iyak ng panday!

They appear to have been referentialized by the particle ng, that is to say, they are nouns. Now they serve as head of the genitive ng panday. But, then, what of bilis and lakas? They appear to be heads of ng takbo and ng iyak, respectively, that is to say, they are nouns. But based on examples (), they should be either adjective or verb since nouns are not allowed in this position (cf. Ang *panday ni Ben). Clearly they cannot be verb. So they must be adjectives, and, in fact, their attributive relation to takbo and iyak, respectively, is unmistakable. But this is puzzling: this is the only construction in the language in which attribution is expressed using the genitive ng. By virtue of the fact that bilis and lakas function as the possessed entity, a role reserved for nouns, they must be nouns. Thus we have gone from a position based on observed data that exclamatives don’t allow noun roots (Ang *panday ni Ben!) to a position where for logical reasons we must admit that exclamatives accept noun roots as pivot (Ang lakas ng iyak ng panday!). Many other constructions show sensitivity to lexical category. Thus:

Comparison Superlative Intensification TagaNominalization PagNominalization Plural affixation Depictives Existentials Naging

Verb Root *mas takbo *pinakatakbo *napakatakbo tagatakbo

Noun Root (see Note 1) (see Note 1) *napakapanday (see Note 2)

pagtakbo

*pagpanday (see Note 3) * *nang panday *May panday Naging panday

* *nang takbo May takbo * Naging takbo (see examples)

Adjective Root *mas bilis *pinakabilis napakabilis *tagabilis pagbilis

Bare Adjective Root mas pangit pinakapangit napakapangit tagapangit (see Note 4) pagpangit

bibilis *nang bilis May bilis *Naging bilis

papangit nang hubad *May pangit Naging pangit

Notes 1. Mas panday is acceptable, but here panday has become generic. True noun roots don’t allow comparison, thus: senador > *mas senador. Similarly, the superlative pinakapanday makes the root panday generic. Again, true noun roots don’t allow superlatives, thus: presidente > *pinakapresidente.

2. Tagapanday is acceptable, but it is from panday as a verb root. True noun roots don’t allow nominalization with taga-, thus: sundalo > *tagasundalo. 3. Pagpanday is acceptable, but, again, it is from panday as a verb root. True noun roots don’t allow nominalization with pag-, thus: sundalo > *pagsundalo. We don’t include other forms of nominalizations because they have added morphosyntax, for example, ka- … -an, with expresses reciprocity, and mang-, which requires CV reduplication, thus: Ka- … -an *katakbuhan Nominalization Mangmananakbo Nominalization

kapandayan

kabilisan

kapangitan

mamamanday

*mangbibilis

*mangpapangit

4. Clearer examples are: tagapikon, Tagasungad si Ben ng ilong (aray!), Tagapandak si Bertong Maton.

Examples of depictive sentences: ()

(a) Umalis siya nang *takbo. (b) Lumaki siya nang *panday. (c) Lumaki siya nang *bilis. (d) Nagbasa siya nang hubad.

Cf. Umalis siya na tumatakbo. cf. Lumaki siya na panday. Cf. Lumaki siya na mabilis.

Examples of existentials: ()

(a) May takbo si Ben. (b) May *panday si Ben. (c) May bilis si Ben. (d) May *pangit si Ben.

Cf. May pagkapanday si Ben. Cf. May bilis na itinatago si Ben. Cf. May kapangitan si Ben.

Examples of naging- sentences: ()

(a) Naging *takbo si Ben.

Cf. Naging takbo ang lakad ni Ben. Takbo here is a noun, not a verb.

(b) Naging panday si Ben. (c) Naging *bilis si Ben. (d) Naging pangit si Ben. We summarize our findings in the following table:

Sentential Function

Predication Modification Exclamation (reference) Comparison Intensification Superlative formation Taganominalization PagNominalization Plural affixation Depictive Existential Nagingconstruction

Which roots perform the indicated sentential function? Verb Roots Noun Roots Adjective Bare Roots Adjectives e.g., takbo e.g., panday e.g., bilis e.g., pangit N Y N Y N Y N Y Y N Y Y N N N

N/Y N/Y N/Y

N Y N

Y Y Y

Y

N

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

N

Y

Y

N Y N

N N Y

N Y N

Y N Y

[Ok, this is an impressive table. But what does the table clarify? Tables are used in support of running text, to make the information stand out when presented in tabular form. Do the extra step here. Look at the patterns. For example, comparison, superlative, and depictives have the same N N N Y pattern. Significant? Looking from top to bottom, Bare adjectives are allowed in nearly all constructions except existential. Why and why only in existentials? Hmmm? But clearly this part of the paper has gotten out of hand. Clean it up.]

The Argument Structure of Roots We have shown several constructions that require roots to belong to some lexical category or other. We will now show that roots can be characterized to have

argument structure. The main thrust of Foley’s paper is that roots don’t have argument structure. Regular nouns serve as heads of possessors, and root nouns also serve this function. Thus, the noun head root panday in ()(a) allow a genitive phrase as complement. But, as shown in ()(b), being a noun and not an adjective, panday rejects a comparative complement. The argument structures are shown in bold. ()

(a) Panday ng hari si Ben. panday N. (possessor, attributee) (Panday allows the possessor complement ng hari.) (b) * (Mas) panday kaysa kay Obet si Ben. (Panday does not allow the comparative kaysa kay Obet)

(Clearly genericized noun roots may be compared, as we will see shortly.) Significantly, where panday is intended as a verb, as in ()(b) below, the sentence is rejected since verb roots do not appear in this predication position. ()

(a) Panday ng gulok si Ben. panday N. (possessor, attributee) (“Ben is a blacksmith of bolos”)

[ng gulok is possessor here? Huh?]

(b) *Panday ng gulok si Ben. panday V. (patient, actor) (panday is intended as a verb root, cf. Pumanday ng gulok si Ben.) Bare adjectives appear in predicate position, as shown earlier, and as adjective, they allow comparative complements, thus: ()

(a) (Mas) pikon kay Obet si Ben. pikon Adj. (‘comparee’, ‘attributee’) (b) (Mas) palalo kay Obet si Ben.

Adjective roots serving as pivots of exclamations also maintain argument structures. For example: ()

(a) Ang higpit ((ni Ben) (sa anak)). higpit Adj. (attributee, oblique) (b) Ang bagal ((ni Ben) (sa bunot ng pitaka)).

Verb roots serving as pivots of exclamations also maintain argument structures. Thus: ()

(a) Ang takbo ng mga tao! (b) Ang inom nila ng serbesa!

takbo V. (actor) inom V. (actor, patient)

Verb roots in exhortatives show the same argument structure. ()

(a) Bili na kayo ng taho! (b) Kain na kayo ng puto!

bili V. (actor, patient) kain V. (actor, patient)

These examples clearly show that roots maintain argument structures that are similar in the pattern of roles of argument structures of their full word counterparts. Minimally, noun roots allow possessors, adjective roots show comparisons, and verb roots

[Ok, so here is the tie up to ‘bigger things’ that we expect.]

Implicatives Foley’s point of view with respect to voice system as a typological tool is that English and other European languages have an asymmetrical voice system, that is to say, one voice, performed by the actor macro-role, is unmarked and the other voices, for example, the passive voice, require special morphosyntax. In contrast, the expression of up to at least seven semantic focuses in Philippine languages are no more marked than one another in verb morphology, hence, the term symmetrical voice system.

() (a) Bumili si Ben ng basi. (b) Bilihin mo ang basi. (c) Iluto mo ang manok. (d) Inuman mo na ang pitsel. (e) Ibili mo si Ben ng basi. (f) Ibukas mo ang plais ng serbesa. (g) Iyaman mo kaya ang pagsasaka.

Verb Voice Marker -um-in i-an iii-

Semantic Focus of Pivot actor patient patient location benefactor instrument cause|reason

One approach to this well-developed process of pivothood is to view some of the pivots, specifically the location, benefactor, instrument, and reason pivots as derived or applied pivots. This involves first promoting the corresponding nonpivot phrases to core on their way to pivothood. This will save the idea of the pivot as a core argument, albeit only a derived and not a lexical core. Now that roots can be shown to have argument structure, their pre-categorial status is now out of the question. But Foley rejected this applicative view, citing examples from other languages that applicatives require the use of applicative markers in the verb when promoted to core, and such markers do not disappear when the phrases are subsequently promoted to pivot. There is an emerging view (Cena 2007) that the suffix –an and the prefix i- are better viewed as expressions of verbal mode rather than voice. This point can be easily explained using the i- prefix. Consider again the following sentences: ()

(a) Iluto mo ang baboy. (b) Ibili mo si Ben ng basi. (c) Ibukas mo ang plais ng serbesa. (d) Iyaman mo kaya ang pagsasaka.

patient benefactor instrument cause|reason

What gives the correct semantic roles of the pivots of these sentences is not the so-called voice affix i-, for, after all, they all have the same affix. We are able to assign the correct roles by considering the potential of the pivot phrases with respect to the action in the verb. For example, in ()(a), we read baboy as the affected entity rather than the benefactor. (The sentence Iluto mo ang baboy ng pagkain would make baboy benefactor.) The roles can be made explicit using modality affixes, thus:

()

(a) Ipaluto mo ang baboy. (b) Ipagluto mo si Ben ng kanin. (c) Ipangbukas mo ang plais ng serbesa. (d) Ikayaman mo kaya ang pagsasaka.

patient|causative benefactor instrument cause|reason

(Ipag- has a non-benefactive sense, as in Ipagbili mo ang baboy, where the pivot is theme, and in Ipagdusa mo ang kasalanan ng ama mo, where I don’t even know what role the pivot plays.) The modal affixes involved in the above sentences are:

Modal Affixes ipa-g-ng-ka-

Significance to put into a new ‘mode’, from its current one to the ‘mode’ expressed by the root (Ricardo Nolasco, pers. comm.); elective injunctive externally directed intensive across time (habitual, reservational or instrumental) or intensive in scope (comprehensive) causative

In other words, morphosyntactically what gives the pivots their role of patient, benefactor, instrument, and reason, respectively, is their modality. Thus there is a good reason that the prefix i- itself is part of the modality affix, if only because it appears in what now can be called the locus for modality. The voice affix in the above is null. (A null voice affix is not unusual since the –in patient affix in the non-contemplated aspect is also null, for example: Bibili- si Ben ng basi.) [But the patient voice affix is not null. It only has zero realization in some constructions. Whereas what you are proposing here is a total null affix. There is a difference.] [Now this is where the paper lives gloriously ever after, or dies pathetically.]

What we claim here is that election to pivot position of the phrases co-indexed by the modality markers in the verb is a process of derived or applied pivot formation, a two-step process. First, they get elected to core by virtue of the expression of their modality. From core position, they then promote to pivot, by virtue of the fact that they do have a voice marker as well, the zero voice marker, indicating neither actor nor patient voice. [“co-indexed”? Since when do mode affixes co-index an argument?] [“First, they get elected to core by virtue of the expression of their modality.” This statement is so important it needs to be independently motivated.]

The conveniences of this approach are manifold: (i) Verb roots need not be pre-categorial, an expensive proposition any way you look at it, and an idea that has been discounted here in any case.

(ii) The concept of the pivot emanating from the set of core arguments is preserved. (iii) What emerges is a simpler set of voice affixes: -in for patient, -um- for actor, -an for locus, and zero for everything else. (iv) The status of i-, pa-, pag-, pang-, and ka- as mode affixes is clarified. Occasionally these are treated as voice or aspect affixes, resulting in much confusion (de Guzman 1978). (v) Another drawback in Foley’s position, at least from the point of view of the Minimalist approach to syntax, is that, with the suggested elemination of the argument structure for verb roots, the underlying representation of verbal phrases take on a non-configurational structure (Kroeger 1993), a baseconfiguration that goes against the strictly binary-branching requirement of the the Minimalist syntax. Summary (missing)

[Are these checklist followed: These are the issues involved. This is the position I’m taking with respect to these issues. I want to show the reason why I am taking this position. I am now showing what I want to show. I hope to have shown what I want to show. I now want to show the implications of what I have shown to something bigger (the claim that x is y, the theory of negation in x language, linguistic theory in general). ]

[This second part is undeveloped]

Ang Kategorya ng mga Buong Salita sa Pilipino Kaugnay sa mungkahi ni Gil, inuhin natin ang pangungusap sa ibaba: Manok ang kumakain.

(Gil, 2000)

Sapagkat ang manok ay ngalan ng isang bagay, ipinalalagay na pangngalan ito. At sapagkat ang kumakain ay nagpapahayag ng isang gawain at binabanghay sa tinig “voice” at sa daloy “aspect”, ipinalalagay na pandiwa ito. Pero pansinin na ang manok ay nagsisilbing panaguri, at ang kumakain ay tinutukoy ng ang kaya’t nagsisilbing simuno. Ang problema, ayon kay Gil (1993, 1995, 2000), halos lahat ng salitang malaman o parirala sa Pilipino ay maaaring tumayo sa lugar ng pangngalan o pariralang pangngalan at sa lugar ng pandiwa o pariralang pandiwa. Iminungkahi ni Gil na ang isang masusing pagsusuri ng mga salita ng Pilipino ay kailangang kumilala na walang “viable distinction” ang pangngalan at pandiwa. “Rather, there is just a single open-class syntactic category, which contains almost all the words and phrases in the language” (Gil, 2000, p. 174). Kung ang dalawang posisyong ito, panaguri at layon ng ang, ang gagamiting bitsay sa pagtanto ng mga kategoryang panggramatika ng salita, lilitaw nga na kahit na aling salita o parirala ay makatatayo sa mga posisyong ito. Katunayan, hindi lang pariralang pandiwa at pariralang pangngalan ang pinapayagan sa dalawang posisyon, kundi lahat ng uri ng parirala.

Mabilis Ben. Para kay Ben ang basi. May basi si Ben. Kay Ben ang basi. Nasa bukid si Ben. Talagang tunay si Ben.

Si Ben ang mabilis. (adjective phrase) Basi ang para kay Ben. (prepositional phrase) Si Ben ang may basi. (existential phrase) Basi ang kay Ben. (possessive phrase) Si Ben ang nasa bukid. (locative phrase) Si Ben ang talagang tunay. (adverbial phrase)

Dahil sa nakakatayo ang mga pariralang ito sa mga lugar na natatayuan ng pandiwa at pangngalan, kung susundan natin ang pag-iisip ni Gil, mapipilitang sabihin na lahat ng mga ito ay kabilang sa iisang klase, na ang iba ay bukas at binubuo ng mga salitang malarawan (pangngalan, pandiwa, pang-uri) at ang iba ay sarado at binubuo ng mga ulong salita na matungkulin (pang-abay, pangtukoy, pang-mayroon). Sa madaling salita, malalaki ang butas ng bitsay ng ginamit ni Gil. Lumusot lahat ang mga salita at parirala, hindi lang ang malalarawang salita tulad ng pangngalan, pang-uri, pandiwa, at pang-abay, kundi pati na mga pariralang ipinakikilala ng mga matungkuling salita, tulad ng para, na-, pa-, may, at iba pa. Hindi naman ibig sabihin na mali ang lapit ni Gil (ang paggamit ng posisyon sa pangungusap sa pagtatag ng kategoryang panggramatika), kundi hindi lang lapat ang pagsusulit na ginamit.

Ang layunin ng “inang” papel ay para ipakita ang pamamaraan ng makabalarilang pananaliksik at pag-iisip. Isang kakulangan ito sa kurikula ng balarila. Maka-agham na pag-iisip ang balarilang pag-iisip. Kapakipakinabang na matutuhan ang kagalingan ito, hindi lamang para magtagumpay sa pag-aaral ng balarila, kundi para magamit na gabay tungo sa mabisang lapit sa mga pangaraw-araw na karanasan. Sa isang papel na binasa ng tagapagsalita ,

Ang Paksa Kroeger (1998), in reply to Foley, attempted to show that Tagalog voice affixation has a different function on nominal roots than it does on verbal roots. Kroeger claimed that “this implies that Tagalog roots are not in fact pre-categorial; rather, their lexical entries must include information about their basic category (N, V, A, etc).” Bilang sagot kay Gil at Himmelomann, ipinaalala ni de Guzman (1996), na maraming semantiko at morpolohikal na ari ng iba’t ibang uri ng mga salita na magagamit na batayan sa pagbuo ng mga kategorya ng salita. Halimbawa, pandiwa lang ang may mga panlaping aspekto at tinig, napaghahambing ang mga pang-uri pero hindi ang pangngalan at pandiwa, pangngalan lang ang nagtataglay ng katangiang pangkaraniwan o pangtangi, atbp. Tinalakay din ni Nolasco (2003, p. 135) ang suliranin. Batay sa obserbasyon ni Rafael (1976), na sa mga wikang Bisaya ay may dalawang uri ng negatibong partikulo, ipinakita ni Nolasco na sa Hiligaynon ginagamit ang “indi” kung nominal ang panaguri at ang “wala” kung pandiwa ang panaguri. Para mapili ang tamang negatibong partikulo, kailangang malaman kung ang panaguri ay pandiwa o pangngalan. Markado ang mga konstruksyon na ginamit ni Gil, ayon kay Nolasco, batay sa bilang na ginawa niya na nagpakita na 7% lang ang kabuoang bilang ng mga halimbawa ng nasabing konstruksyon, maliit na bahagi ng kabuoan para gawing batayan ng isang mahalaga at malawak na palagay. This behavior is common among languages (for example, English: How pretty it is!, How the rabbit runs!, *How soldier he is!). Its relevance to the topic at hand is

that it is a behavior that can be described only with reference to word class information, suggesting again that Tagalog roots need to carry category information to function properly in yet another construction type. Let us trace a possible derivation of these sentences. Clearly () is related to: Mabilis na tumakbo ang panday. About which an observer might say: Ang bilis (na) tumakbo ng panday. Ang bilis ng takbo ng panday. But not: *Ang mabilis ng takbo ng panday. *Ang takbo na mabilis ng panday.

If exclamations allow adjective and verb pivots, this then weakens the claim of the ang particle as a referentializer. The following sentences show that an adverb may also be the pivot of an exclamation construction. Ang bilis tumakbo ng panday! Ang lakas umiyak ng panday! You cannot have *ang takbong mabilis ng panday! Talagang tumakbo ang panday. *!Ang talagang tumakbo ng panday.

Naging sundalo Naging *bilis Naging *takbo

Nouns are identificative Verbs are predicative Adjectives are attributive.

but not referential?