You're actually a neurosurgeon of grammars of Austronesian languages, and I like how you operate on them... Nice to know how our languages evolved through regional people's of S.E.A. and Pacific and far-flung Madagascar.
I just found your channel today and I'm so excited to see how you delve into Austronesian languages and their history/etymology. Even in the Philippines, I don't think there's any study into the grammars of other langiages aside from Tagalog so this is a breath of fresh air and educational too.
Great job! It's quite clear how you approached the topic. I would just like to add that in many Philippine languages, to be more emphatic, the verb affixes are also changed to reflect the noun particles. In Cebuano, focusing on Nancy might change the verb to 'gisulatan'. Likewise, 'gipangsulat' for the pencil. But I know that's not the main point of this video and any patient Cebuano would know what you meant anyway. Especially in Cebu wherein sentences are always getting shortened.
"gisulat" is enough for the instrumental. It should be "igisulat" but Cebuano has long dropped the "i" since even in the oldest documents available, attestations for "igi-" are very rare (although there certainly are). Anyway, point is you calqued Tagalog's "ipinaN-" into Cebuano as "gipaN-".
Tagalog speaker here. It's also noteworthy to point out that in Philippine languages the verb conjugates differently depending on what is focused on the sentence. Just curious tho, is this also true for Taiwanese, Indonesian and Malaysian languages with a focus system?
Taiwanese is not the right name. Taiwanese is the Chinese or Mandarin dialect spoken in Taiwan. The indigenous Austronesian languages spoken in Taiwan are called "Formosan". The only ones that retain the Austronesian symmetrical system are the Formosan languages, Philippine languages (including those in Northern Sulawesi), some languages in northern Borneo, and finally Malagasy, the official language of Madagascar.
i dont think cebuano has an instrumetal focus. in tagalog it's cumbersome to construct. and i have a hard time identifying the correct affix to use for instrumental focus in cebuano.
@@J11_boohoo For tagalog Ex. Ipambibili ko ang pera na ito ng alahas. I will buy jewelry with this money. Pera (money) is the focus so it is preceded with "ang" (same marker used in cebuano). Verb is conjugated with "ipang-" for instrumental focus. P.S. Tool me time to reply since i am still wondering about the veracity of my claim.
Cebuano DOES have the instrumental focus. We use "i-" for it. That's also the "original" or "proto" form. Tagalog is the one that diverged by innovating "ipaN-" directly for the instrumental.
Yep the i- for instrumental is the original. What happened in Tagalog is that this i- somewhat "exploded" in meaning. Notice that the reason Tagalog has more than 4 focus is that i- is attached to another prefix, like Ipang- for instrumental focus and Ika- for causative/reason.
Just a correction to instrument focus: Maria wrote a letter with the pencil. from "Gisulat ni Maria ang lapis ug sulat." to "Gisulat ni Maria ang sulat gamit ang lapis." where gamit means used. Similarly, The woman wrote a letter with the pencil. from "Gisulat sa babaye ang lapis ug sulat." to "Gisulat sa babaye ang sulat gamit ang lapis" where gamit means used. To me, your translation "Gisulat ni Maria ang lapis ug sulat." means "Maria wrote (both) the pencil and letter." In this particular example, you can really see the difference of using these connectors to mean different things/ideas. I dont know if other bisaya/cebuano dialects would agree with me on this. But nonetheless a very great job for this. I appreciate the time, effort, and resources used in making these videos. Keep it up!
The instrument focus is already correct. Gisulat ang lapis og sulat. The pencil was used to write a letter. Gikandos ang luwag og kan-on. The laddle was used to scoop rice. Take note that the "gi-" here came from "igi-" which was found in Old Cebuano but is now obsolete in Modern Cebuano. • Patient gi- (completive) gina- (progressive) paga--on (contemplative) pag--on (infinitive) • Instrument (i)gi- (completive) (i)gina- (progressive) iga- (contemplative) i(g)- (infinitive) Cebuano, like most Philippine languages, have verb aspects NOT tenses.
Thx for teaching us about this grammar. Up until now, there was barely any teaching stuff on here, so it's great seeing people teach it.
You're actually a neurosurgeon of grammars of Austronesian languages, and I like how you operate on them...
Nice to know how our languages evolved through regional people's of S.E.A. and Pacific and far-flung Madagascar.
Can't wait for the rest of the videos on focus markers.
I just found your channel today and I'm so excited to see how you delve into Austronesian languages and their history/etymology. Even in the Philippines, I don't think there's any study into the grammars of other langiages aside from Tagalog so this is a breath of fresh air and educational too.
Great job! It's quite clear how you approached the topic.
I would just like to add that in many Philippine languages, to be more emphatic, the verb affixes are also changed to reflect the noun particles.
In Cebuano, focusing on Nancy might change the verb to 'gisulatan'. Likewise, 'gipangsulat' for the pencil.
But I know that's not the main point of this video and any patient Cebuano would know what you meant anyway. Especially in Cebu wherein sentences are always getting shortened.
"gisulat" is enough for the instrumental. It should be "igisulat" but Cebuano has long dropped the "i" since even in the oldest documents available, attestations for "igi-" are very rare (although there certainly are).
Anyway, point is you calqued Tagalog's "ipinaN-" into Cebuano as "gipaN-".
"si" still exists in malaysian/indonesian. some form of "ang" also still exist as "yang".
I suspect “yang” came from ia+ng or ia+ang
Proud Bisdak here...
What's to be proud of?
@@kzm-cb5mr cause I have a cebuano blood.
Tagalog speaker here. It's also noteworthy to point out that in Philippine languages the verb conjugates differently depending on what is focused on the sentence. Just curious tho, is this also true for Taiwanese, Indonesian and Malaysian languages with a focus system?
He has a video about this but only speaking of Philippine languages
Taiwanese is not the right name. Taiwanese is the Chinese or Mandarin dialect spoken in Taiwan. The indigenous Austronesian languages spoken in Taiwan are called "Formosan".
The only ones that retain the Austronesian symmetrical system are the Formosan languages, Philippine languages (including those in Northern Sulawesi), some languages in northern Borneo, and finally Malagasy, the official language of Madagascar.
I'd really appreciate if you talked a little bit about Malagasy. I'm a native speaker. 😊
First.
can you create a part two video of why tagalog is hard for malaysian or video about tagalog and cebuano similarities
i dont think cebuano has an instrumetal focus. in tagalog it's cumbersome to construct. and i have a hard time identifying the correct affix to use for instrumental focus in cebuano.
Can you give an example in tagalog where instrumental focus us used?
@@J11_boohoo
For tagalog
Ex.
Ipambibili ko ang pera na ito ng alahas.
I will buy jewelry with this money.
Pera (money) is the focus so it is preceded with "ang" (same marker used in cebuano).
Verb is conjugated with "ipang-" for instrumental focus.
P.S.
Tool me time to reply since i am still wondering about the veracity of my claim.
Cebuano DOES have the instrumental focus. We use "i-" for it. That's also the "original" or "proto" form. Tagalog is the one that diverged by innovating "ipaN-" directly for the instrumental.
@@thethirdjegs Ipalit kini nakong kwartaha og alahas.
Yep the i- for instrumental is the original. What happened in Tagalog is that this i- somewhat "exploded" in meaning. Notice that the reason Tagalog has more than 4 focus is that i- is attached to another prefix, like Ipang- for instrumental focus and Ika- for causative/reason.
Just a correction to instrument focus:
Maria wrote a letter with the pencil.
from "Gisulat ni Maria ang lapis ug sulat."
to "Gisulat ni Maria ang sulat gamit ang lapis." where gamit means used.
Similarly,
The woman wrote a letter with the pencil.
from "Gisulat sa babaye ang lapis ug sulat."
to "Gisulat sa babaye ang sulat gamit ang lapis" where gamit means used.
To me, your translation "Gisulat ni Maria ang lapis ug sulat." means "Maria wrote (both) the pencil and letter." In this particular example, you can really see the difference of using these connectors to mean different things/ideas. I dont know if other bisaya/cebuano dialects would agree with me on this.
But nonetheless a very great job for this. I appreciate the time, effort, and resources used in making these videos. Keep it up!
“Gisulat sa babayi ang sulat og lapis" would already suffixe without the use of "gamit".
The instrument focus is already correct.
Gisulat ang lapis og sulat.
The pencil was used to write a letter.
Gikandos ang luwag og kan-on.
The laddle was used to scoop rice.
Take note that the "gi-" here came from "igi-" which was found in Old Cebuano but is now obsolete in Modern Cebuano.
• Patient
gi- (completive)
gina- (progressive)
paga--on (contemplative)
pag--on (infinitive)
• Instrument
(i)gi- (completive)
(i)gina- (progressive)
iga- (contemplative)
i(g)- (infinitive)
Cebuano, like most Philippine languages, have verb aspects NOT tenses.
@@mountainrock7682as a native speaker, i think that is very vague. i would personally add more affixes to the verb root for clarity.
@@mountainrock7682as far as i know, cebuano doesn't have a contemplative aspect.
@@user-yf4co5in7d Lol. Who said so?