Samarnon Phrase Markers, Part 2


This is a continuation of Part 1.

The Nominative Phrase Markers: IT vs. AN

In part 1 we learned from Chris Sundita that the difference between it and an is that the former is a definite non-past marker, the later is a definite past marker. And he further clarified (in the other  thread we mentioned) from whom he got this information although he does not agree in full:

Dr. Zorc, in his dissertation from the 70’s, puts the three into indefinite (in) & definite (an & it) categories. I agree with that so far. But he further puts the definite ones into temporal categories; an for past and it for non-past which doesn’t seem consistent to me. I mean an in non-past circumstances and it in past situations….it appears to refer to something really specific.. While an is somewhere in between. Kind of general, I guess. I think the difference between an and it is something like the difference between Tagalog ang & yung. But, again, not entirely sure….an is also used to express something that is "anaphorically" known without regards to time.

One of the users, sumoroy1998, who is a native speaker wrote that he is not conscious he is making temporal distinction:

Although Chris’ summary more or less gives a rough sketch of the different nuances in the different articles. it is the most precise, an is a definite article but slightly less precise (and occasionally used in temporal classifications) while in is the indefinite article (the English equivalents of in are "a, an") So "Ano it iya kinaka-on" and "Ano an iya kinaka-on" are similar in meaning but there is only a slight nuance that makes them distinct. The closest equivalent I can think of is the difference between "that thing" and "the thing."

One more thing though about something that Chris brought up, namely the so-called temporal classifications. As a native speaker I’m not consciously aware of making a distinction between non-past and past when using it in the place of an. But I can think of the following examples where I can guess Dr. Zorc came up with these classifications:  Didto an tawo (The man WAS over there) vs.  Didto it tawo (The man IS over there)

And he speculates about its origin:

While on this subject, I came across an excerpt of Norberto Romualdez Sr.’s 1908 "Bisayan Grammar" (a grammar of Waray-Waray to be exact) which by a happy coincidence deals a little bit on this subject. Interestingly Romualdez only lists 2 articles: in as the indefinite article and an for the definite article. No mention of it was given, but I’m guessing he considered it an abbreviation of iton–Tagalog yun or English THAT instead of a separate definite article. Another possibility is that an was the original definite article and it was a latter development. Personally though I’m inclined to agree with the latter linguists like Zorc who classify it as a definite article, since it‘s usage is better described as a definite article rather than an abbreviated pronoun. (It’s true though that iton can be abbreviated as it).

I think that native speaker’s intuition about its usage is very revealing that he is not making any temporal distinctions! Just from this, I would provisionally conclude that Zorc and Sundita erred. it is similar to Tagalog yung, English THAT and Bikol si/su. Also, it does not show up in the Samarnon online bible.

Edit: While reading WarayLanguage.org’s frequency list for iton (rank 51), ito (rank 56) and it (rank 17), I realized how this tense distinction can arise. These words are demonstratives (“this or that”) such that its referent can only be referred to if physically present and as such will give off a present tense reading; an on the other hand is tense neutral, and if contrasted with it, will get a past tense reading since that semantic space is unoccupied by it.

HIN & HAN :Genitive, Oblique or Objective Phrase Markers?

While reading Sentence Patterns of the Ten Major Philippine Languages by Ernesto Constantino, I noticed some unusual usage of the two Samarnon phrase markers hin/sin and han/san: they seem to translate to Tagalog, Hiligaynon, Romblomanon and Bikol sa in some of their usage. Sugbuhanon can’t be included there since it has merged these two (sa and sang) into one sa so would be difficult to get examples unless we are looking for the indefinite og.

Here’s my attempt to classify the usage of han/san, hin/sin and ha/sa in Samarnon. I changed the original orthography from that used by Constantino for 2 phonemes: N to ŋ and q to ɥ. The thematic relation column refers to that of the nominal phrase marked with han/san, hin/sin or ha/sa in the sentence or sentence fragment shown. Check the Wikipedia the definition for thematic relations if you’re not familiar with them. A quick note on the difference between Patient and Theme is that the Patient does not remain intact while the Theme does and instead is changing in state, position or condition. For Verbal Focus, check the Seasite for definitions and examples in the related Tagalog language. The verbal focus location includes direction and time as well.

A. Uses of han/san that agrees with Tagalog, Bikol

Sentence
Number
Sentence Fragment Thematic
Relation
Verb Affix Used Verbal Focus
9 nagswirti han ɥalkaldi Agent mag> AF (Actor)
21 ginkaɥun han bataɥ Agent <on NAF (Object)
22 pinalit han ɥuilitawu Agent <on NAF (Object)
23 hinatag han ɥasindiru Agent <on NAF (Object)
24 ɥinutud han tawu Agent <on NAF (Object)
26 hinatagan han ɥasindiru Agent <an NAF (Location)
25 pinalit han ɥulitawu Agent i> NAF (Conveyance)
27 ginhatag han ɥasindiru Agent i> NAF (Conveyance)
28 ginpaŋutud han tawu Agent ipang> NAF (Conveyance)
34 ginpakaɥun han daraga Agent ipa> NAF (Conveyance)
30 ginkaswirti han kunsihal Agent ka><on NAF (Object)
32 ginpakaɥun han daraga Agent pa><on NAF (Object)
33 ginpahusay han prinsisa Agent pa><on NAF (Object)
29 kinamatyan han hadiɥ Experiencer ka><an NAF (Location)
93 kahusay han daraga Possessor ka> Exclamative

Notes on the above table:

  1. Use of han in Sentence #9 seems to be wrong here and should be ɥan instead, and possibly explains why this sentence is the only Actor focus (AF) example there.
  2. Sentence #93 is not a verbal clause, so would not have a Verbal Focus.
  3. Sentences #25, 27, 28 and 34 all indicate that the prefix i> can be dropped by Samarnon (and Hiligaynon, Sugbuhanon, Tausug and Ilokano) in some of the conjugations, since both Tagalog and Bikol have i>. This needs to be checked further as it does not conform to the book Encyclopedia of the World’s Major Languages: Past and Present or the Concise Encyclopedia of Languages of the World where i> conjugations does not show any i> being dropped, unless those charts were based only on those verbs that have retained i> in Samarnon.
  4. Compared with both Tagalog and Bikol (ika>, Conveyance Focus), Samarnon in sentence #29 uses a different affix (ka><an, Location Focus) just like Sugbuhanon and Hiligaynon. This sentence has reason as the topic of a verb. This was also done on Sentence #25 by Sugbuhanon, Hiligaynon, Tausug and Ilokano when the topic is the beneficiary.
  5. In summary, han/san is used for either Agent or Experiencer (depending on the root word and affix) of a verb in Non-Actor Focus (NAF) affix, or additionally with a Possessor if its a possession clause.
  6. Can hin/sin be used for Agent or Experiencer of a verb in Non-Actor Focus (NAF) affix, or additionally with a Possessor if its a possession clause? In Bikol, these are possible, so I would suppose that these are also possible in Samarnon.

B. Uses of hin/sin that agrees with Tagalog, Bikol

Sentence
Number
Sentence Fragment Thematic
Relation
Verb Affix Used Verbal
Focus
Verb
Valency
2 kinmaɥun hin maŋga Patient <um> AF (Actor) Divalent
5 ɥinmutud hin kahuy Patient <um> AF (Actor) Divalent
103 kaɥun hin damuq Patient <um> AF (Actor) Divalent
17 nagpakaɥun hin karni Patient magpa> AF (Actor) Trivalent
18 nagpagabut hin ŋipun Theme magpa> AF (Actor) Trivalent
20 nagpahusayay hin baduɥ Theme magpa><ay AF (Actor) Trivalent
3 pinmalit hin bukad Theme <um> AF (Actor) Quadrivalent
4 hinmatag hin bugas Theme <um> AF (Actor) Trivalent
28 ginpaŋutud hin kahuy Patient ipang> NAF (Conveyance) Trivalent
32 ginpakaɥun hin karni Patient pa><on NAF (Object) Trivalent
24 ɥinutud hin sundaŋ Instrument <on NAF (Object) Trivalent
25 pinalit hin bukad Theme <on NAF (Object) Quadrivalent
26 hinatagan hin bugas Theme <an NAF (Location) Trivalent
109 yayabuhan hin tubig Theme <an NAF (Location) Trivalent

Notes on the above table:

  1. In sentence #103, hin damuq  has a Patient semantic relation even if damuq is an adjective since the object has been dropped while its adjective modifier was retained.
  2. Some of the other verbs (#17,#18,#20,#28,#32) become trivalent with the addition of pa>, pang>, pag>. “Buy” is semantically already quadrivalent or tetravalent. The roots give, cut and pour are semantically trivalent.
  3. To sum up, if the verb is in Actor Focus, the nominal phrase semantic relation is Patient or Theme depending on verb semantics. If the verb is in Non-Actor Focus, the nominal phrase is a Patient, Theme or Instrument depending on the verb and nominal phrase semantics.
  4. Is it possible,
    1. if the verb is in Actor Focus (AF), for the nominal phrase as
      1. Agent or Experiencer to be marked with hin? I don’t think this is possible, see my comment on #9 above using han. If actor-focused, actor topics are by definition marked with ɥan or ɥin. Possessor can use hin or han.
      2. Patient or a Theme to be marked with han? This can also be tested in Bikol since the language makes a definite-indefinite distinction, unlike Tagalog, and I can think of sentences that do use a definite marker for a patient/theme of a verb in Actor focus. The answer is yes but the patient or theme has to have a modifier that restricts its scope.
    2. if the verb is in Non-Actor Focus (NAF), for the nominal phrase as
      1. Patient, Theme or Instrument to be marked with han? This can also be tested in Bikol since the language makes a definite-indefinite distinction, unlike Tagalog, and I can think of sentences that do use a definite marker for a patient/theme of a verb in Actor focus. The answer is yes but the patient or theme has to have a modifier that restricts its scope.

C. Uses of ha/sa that agrees with Tagalog, Bikol

Sentence
Number
Sentence Fragment Thematic
Relation
Verb Affix Used Verbal Focus Verb Valency
48,65,73 ɥadtu ha bukid Location n.a. Existential n.a.
49 waray ha bukid Location n.a. Existential n.a.
87 may tawu sa balay Location n.a. Existential n.a.
88 waray tawu ha balay Location n.a. Existential n.a.
4 hinmatag ha makililimus Direction (Recipient) <um> AF (Actor) Trivalent
17 nagpakaɥun ha ɥiduɥ Direction (Recipient) magpa> AF (Actor) Trivalent
8 nakigswirti ha ɥalkaldi Direction (Comitative) makipag> AF (Actor) Divalent
23 hinatag ha makililimus Direction (Recipient) i> NAF (Conveyance) Trivalent
27 ginhatag ha makililimus Direction (Recipient) i> NAF (Conveyance) Trivalent
34 ginpakaɥun ha ɥiduɥ Direction (Recipient) ipa> NAF (Conveyance) Trivalent

Notes on the above table:

  1. The first 4 sentence fragments are non-verbal clauses, so verbal affix and valency will not be applicable, and the nominal phrase has a Location semantic role.
  2. In verbal clauses, it can also be Location role if the nominal phrase refers to a place, otherwise its role becomes Direction.
  3. It should be noted that Recipients are special kinds of Direction role or the goal or endpoint of the direction of ownership or possession change.
  4. In summary, the nominal phrase is either a Location or Direction/Goal of the verb.
  5. Changing the phrase marker from ha/sa marked Recipients to either han/san or hin/sin makes the nominal phrase the Theme (#4) or Patient/Affectee (#17,#8) in AF verbs, or the Agent (#23,#27,#34) in NAF verbs.

D. Uses of han/san and hin/sin that is different from Tagalog, Bikol

Sentence
Number
Sentence Thematic
Relation
Verb Affix Used Verbal Focus Verb Valency
3 pinmalit hin bukad ɥan ulitawu para han daraga Affectee <um> AF (Actor) Quadrivalent
22 pinalit han ɥuilitawu ɥan bukad para han daraga. Affectee <on NAF (Object) Quadrivalent
45 para han daraga ɥan bukad. Affectee n.a. Equational n.a.
72 bukad ɥan para han daraga Affectee n.a. Equational n.a.
46 tuŋud han prisidinti ɥan nutisya. Subject Matter n.a. Equational n.a.
7 namatay ɥan hadiq hin tibi. Manner/Cause/Reason/
Condition
ma> AF (Undergoer) Monovalent

Notes on the above table:

  1. Affectee is a cover term for beneficiary and maleficiary.
  2. There are two types here:
    1. Sentences #3,#22,#45,#72,#46 involve prepositions “para” and “tungud”, and in Samarnon “han” is used while “sa” is used in Tagalog and Bikol.
    2. #7 is not a preposition.
  3. The Thematic role of Condition, if the subject of the sentence, is marked on the verb with ka><an, implying something that is with the Experiencer.

Apart form hin/sin and han/san, Constantino has Samarnon examples that uses “nin”, which is a Bikol and Romblomanon marker. In Sentence #9, han might be a misprint and could be ɥan. These facts makes me think that his sample sentences has not been thoroughly checked.

  Samarnon Bikol
16 Nagpatuɥuk hiya nin bataw. Nagpahibiɥ sya nin ɥakiɥ.
59 Hiya ɥan nagpatuɥuk nin bataɥ. Sya ɥan nagpahibiɥ nin ɥakiɥ.
9 Nagswirti ɥan kunsihal ŋan han ɥalkaldi. Nagɥulay ɥan kunsihal saka ɥan ɥalkaldi.

The second to last table summarizes the instances of han/san and hin/sin that I think are a bit different from Tagalog and Bikol, but the sample sentences are too few to make any robust conclusion. So lets check out some online Bible examples.

Some more Online Examples

As I’ve done in the past, I’ve used the online version of the Bible in these languages to look out for more instances of han/san and hin/sin in Samarnon with different usage. As these are different translations, some of the sentences don’t match up, yet it is really important that the verb has the same focus or even affix to be comparable, so I have re-casted some of the sentences to a parallel structure although its not done yet for Hiligaynon. Some grouped examples taken from the first four chapters of Matthew are in the following tables.

A) The nominal phrases marked with han/hin in Samarnon refer to a Purpose, Cause or Reason. Its not possible to replace the marker sa in Tagalog and Bikol with ng or nin/kan respectively.

Matthew Samarnon Hiligaynon Bikol Tagalog
2:2 kinmanhi kami hin pagsingba ha iya nagkari kami sa pagsimba sa iya nagdigdi kami nganing sambahon siya.
————
nagdigdi kami sa pagsimba saiya
naparito kami upang siya’y sambahin.
————-
naparito kami sa pagsamba sa kanya
2:18 Nagtangis hi Raquel tungod han iya mga anak Si Raquel nagahibi tungod sa iya mga kabataan Pinagtangisan ni Rachel an mga aki niya
——–
Nagtangis si Rachel manungod sa mga aki niya.
Tinatangisan ni Raquel ang kaniyang mga anak
——–
Tumangis si Raquel tungkol sa kanyang mga anak.
4:4 Nabubuhi an tawo diri la hin tinapay, kundi han tagsa nga pulong nga ginyayakan han Dyos. Indi lamang sa tinapay mabuhi ang tawo, kundi sa tagsa ka pulong nga ginahambal sang Dios. Bakong sa tinapay sana nabubuhay an tawo, kundi sa lambang tataramon na minagikan sa ngoso nin Dios Hindi sa tinapay lamang mabubuhay ang tao, kundi sa bawa’t salitang lumalabas sa bibig ng Dios.

B) The nominal phrases marked with han/hin in Samarnon refer to a Manner. This is normally in preposition form. Tagalog and Bikol have similar structure in the last 2 examples ( sa + preposition + definite genitive case marker ) and it can’t be said to be a straightforward counterpart of Samarnon.

Matthew Samarnon Hiligaynon Bikol Tagalog
1:19 nakahunahuna hiya hin pagbaya kan Maria hin hilom la ginpakamaayo niya ang pagbiya sa iya sa tago lang nag-isip siyang suhayan ini sa hilom
————–
nag-isip siya nin pagbaya ki Maria sa hilom sana.
nagpasiyang hiwalayan siya ng lihim
————-
nagpasiya siyang paghiwalay kay Maria ng lihim lang.
3:16 hinkit-an ni Jesus an Espiritu han Dyos nga nakunsad sugad hin sarapati nakita niya ang Espiritu sang Dios nga nagkunsad subong sang isa ka pating nahiling niya an Espiritu nin Dios na naghilig arog sa salampati nakita niya ang Espiritu ng Dios na bumababang tulad sa isang kalapati
2:12 Ginpahimangno hira han Dyos pinaagi hin inop Ginpaandaman sila sang Dios sa damgo Pinatanidan sinda nin Dios sa pangatorogan pinagsabihan sila ng Dios sa panaginip
1:22 matuman an iginyakan han Ginoo pinaagi han manaragna mapamatud-an ang ginhambal sang Ginoo paagi sa propeta maotob an sinabi nin Kagurangnan sa paagi kan propeta maganap ang sinalita ng Panginoon sa pamamagitan ng propeta
2:15 Nahinabo ini basi matuman an iginsiring han Ginoo pinaagi han manaragna Ini nahanabo agod matuman ang ginsiling sang Ginoo paagi sa propeta Nangyari ini tanganing maotob an itinaram nin Kagurangnan sa paagi kan propeta upang maganap ang sinabi ng Panginoon sa pamamagitan ng propeta

C) The nominal phrases marked with han/hin in Samarnon refer to a Beneficiary treated as Direction/Goal. This is normally in preposition form using “para”. Its not possible to replace sa in Tagalog and Bikol with ng or nin/kan respectively.

Matthew Samarnon Hiligaynon Bikol Tagalog
3:3 Andama niyo an dalan para han Ginoo Amana ninyo ang alagyan para sa Ginoo Andama an dalan para sa Kagurangnan Ihanda ninyo ang daan ng Panginoon
———–
Ihanda ninyo ang daan para sa Panginoon

D) The nominal phrases marked with han/hin in Samarnon refer to a Patient/Theme/Recipient treated as a Direction/Goal. In the 2nd example, sa can be replaced with ng (Tagalog) or nin/kan (Bikol) if there is no nominal phrase with such a marker already.

Matthew Samarnon Hiligaynon Bikol Tagalog
1:25 Jesus an iginngaran ni Jose han bata ginhingalanan ni Jose ang bata nga Jesus
——————
??
sarong aking lalaki na nginaranan niyang Jesus
—————-
Jesus an inginaran ni Jose sa aki.
tinawag niya ang kaniyang pangalang JESUS.
————
Jesus ang inginalan niya sa bata.
2:20 patay na an mga nagdudumot han bata patay na ang mga nagahingabot sa kabuhi sang bata
———————
gadan na an mga naghomang gumadan sa aki nangamatay na ang nangagmimithi sa buhay ng sanggol.
———
patay na ang nangagmimithing pumatay sa sanggol.

E) The nominal phrases marked with han/hin in Samarnon refer to a Instrument. sa can be replaced with ng (Tagalog) or nin/kan (Bikol) if there is no nominal phrase with such a marker already.

Matthew Samarnon Hiligaynon Bikol Tagalog
3:11 magbubunyag ha iyo han Espiritu Santo magabautiso sa inyo sa Espiritu Santo mabunyag saindo sa Espiritu Santo sa inyo’y magbabautismo sa Espiritu Santo

F) The nominal phrases marked with han/hin in Samarnon refer to a Point of Reference/Origin/Source. Its not possible to replace sa in Tagalog and Bikol with ng or nin/kan respectively.

Matthew Samarnon Hiligaynon Bikol Tagalog
1:21 magtatalwas hiya han iya katawhan tikang han ira mga sala. magaluwas sia sang iya mga tawo sa ila mga sala. ililigtas niya an saiyang banwaan sa saindang mga kasalan.
———————-
nagliligtas siya kan saiyang banwaan sa saindang mga kasalan.
ililigtas niya ang kaniyang bayan sa kanilang mga kasalanan
——————-
nagliligtas siya ng kaniyang bayan sa kanilang mga kasalanan
3:7 makakalikay kamo han tiarabot nga kasina han Dyos makapalagyo kamo sa kaakig sang Dios nga madali na lang mag-abot makakadulag kamo sa maabot na padusa nin Dios upang magsitakas sa galit na darating
——–
makatakas kayo sa darating na galit ng Dios.
3:10 Andam na an parakol hin pagpulod han kahoy ha iya mga gamot Ang wasay handa na sa pag-utod sang kahoy sa iya gid puno andam na an patok sa pagputol kan gamot kan mga kahoy ngayon pa’y nakalagay na ang palakol sa ugat ng mga punong kahoy
———–
Handa na ang palakol sa pagputol ng kahoy sa kanyang mga ugat.
2:16 sumala han iya nahibaroan tikang han mga bisita han takna han pagpakita han bitoon suno sa tion nga iya nahibal-an sa mga dumoloaw sosog sa naaraman niya sa mga mago manongod kan oras nin pagtunga kan bitoon alinsunod sa panahon ng kaniyang maingat na pagkasiyasat sa mga Pantas na lalake.
3:12 Dara niya an iya nigo hin pagpalid basi an uhot mahilain han tipasi Ginauyatan na niya ang iya inugpahangin sa pagpain sang tinggas sa upa May dara siyang saligsigan nganing saligsigon an gabos na inani
—————-
Dara niya an saiyang nigo nin pampapalid nganing an uhot mailain sa tipasi.
Nasa kaniyang kamay ang kaniyang kalaykay, at lilinisin niyang lubos ang kaniyang giikan
—–
Dala niya ang kanyang “??” ng “??” upang ang ay “??” maihiwalay sa ipa.
3:4 Hinimo hin buhok hin kamelyo an kan Juan panapton ng bayu ni Juan nahimo sa bulbol sang kamelyo An gubing ni Juan gibo sa mga buhok nin kamelyo Si Juan nga ay nananamit ng balahibo ng kamelyo
————–
Ang damit ni Juan ay gawa sa balahibo ng kamelyo.

G) The nominal phrases marked with han/hin in Samarnon refer to a Location, and naturally can only be marked with sa in Hiligaynon, Bikol and Tagalog. The only exception is possibly Matthew 2:11 due to the semantics of the verb. Note that the blue phrase markers in Matthew 3:5 are not the correct counterpart since the expression used in Hiligaynon, Bikol and Tagalog are different, so need to be re-stated.

Matthew Samarnon Hiligaynon Bikol Tagalog
2:11 Sinmulod hira han balay Nagsulod sila sa balay Paglaog ninda sa harong
——————
Naglaog sinda sa harong.
nagsipasok sila sa bahay
3:5 tikang han ngatanan nga katunaan nga harani han Salog Jordan halin sa mga duog sa palibot sang suba sang Jordan.
—————–
?
an mga nag-eerok sa mag-ibong kan Salog nin Jordan
————
hale sa gabos na daga na harani sa salog Jordan.
ng buong lupain sa palibotlibot ng Jordan
——–
mula sa lahat ng lupain na malapit sa ilog Jordan
3:16 Han kabunyagi na kan Jesus, hinmawas hiya han tubig Sang mabautisohan na si Jesus, nagtakas sia Kan mabunyagan na si Jesus, naghawas siya tolos sa tubig At nang mabautismuhan si Jesus, pagdaka’y umahon sa tubig
4:1 gindara hi Jesus han Espiritu ngadto han kamingawan si Jesus gindala sang Espiritu sa desierto dinara si Jesus kan Espiritu Santo duman sa kalangtadan inihatid ng Espiritu Santo si Jesus sa ilang
4:5 Niyan gindara hiya han Yawa ngadto han Baraan nga Syudad, ngan ibinutang hiya didto han gihahataasi nga atop han Templo Dason gindala sang Yawa si Jesus sa Balaan nga Siyudad kag ginpatindog sa pinakamataas nga bahin sang templo Dangan dinara si Jesus kan Demonyo sa Jerusalem an Banal na Syudad asin pinatindog sa atop kan Templo Nang magkagayo’y dinala siya ng diablo sa bayang banal; at inilagay siya sa taluktok ng templo
4:8 gindara hiya han Yawa ngadto hin gihahataasi nga bukid gindala pa gid sang Yawa si Jesus sa isa ka mataas nga bukid dinara si Jesus kan Demonyo sa sarong halangkawon na bukid dinala siya ng diablo sa isang bundok na lubhang mataas
4:18 nagtutunod han ira pukot didto han lanaw nagaladlad sang ila sahid sa pagpangisda Nag-iitsa sinda kan hikot sa tubig inihuhulog ang isang lambat sa dagat
————–
Naghuhulog  ng kanilang lambat sa dagat.
4:23 nagtutdo hiya didto han ira mga sinagoga nagpanudlo sa mga sinagoga Nagtukdo siya sa mga sinagoga nagtuturo sa mga sinagoga nila

 

Summary

I was able to show example sentences where Samarnon uses han/hin for thematic relations beyond the usual genitive case usage in Tagalog, Bikol and Hiligaynon, including Location and Direction/Goal (Patient/Theme/Recipient/Beneficiary), which is a significant find.

Since I don’t really speak Samarnon and I don’t have Samarnon native speaker to consult, it is difficult to make a definitive conclusion on the range of case that Samarnon hin/sin and han/san mark. We have to replace the hin/sin and han/san of the sample Samarnon sentences with ha/sa to be able to do that. But data do suggest that it marks genitive case (like in Tagalog, Bikol and Hiligaynon) plus also oblique case normally reserve for ha/sa.

Does this mean that in Samarnon, (1) the genitive case can be used in lieu of the oblique case but not vice versa, or (2) the genitive case has a wider scope in Samarnon with the oblique case having a narrower scope? If the second case is correct, how is the usage of oblique case marker ha/sa different from the genitive case markers since they seem to have overlap in being used for Location and Direction/Goal, among other cases?

Lastly, could this Samarnon data (interchangeability between the oblique phrase marker sa and san) point to them having a common origin, in that the the oblique marker sa is derived from the genitive marker san, in the same way that Sugbuhanon genitive case marker sa is derived from san? Samarnon is know for dropping word endings, like:

nakon nak
akon ak
aton at
kita kit
kamo kam
imo im
ako ak

Although the above words are different in that they went from two syllable word to one syllable, there might be a single syllable Samarnon word that also underwent the same change if, arguably, la “just, only, alone, no more” is shortened from Tagalog, Bikol, Hiligaynon and Sugbuhanon lang, where last nasal was dropped, possibly like han/san > ha/sa.

Until we meet a Samarnon native speaker, our original question (Hin & Han: Genitive, Oblique or Objective Phrase Markers?) remains unanswered.

Advertisements

2 Responses to “Samarnon Phrase Markers, Part 2”

  1. Firth McEachern Says:

    Hi “Xiller”, great blog (I think i said this already in a post from 3 years ago). I’m glad to see it’s still up and running, unlike many of the Bikol-based blogs on your blog roll. I’ve been meaning to get in touch with you as a fellow language enthusiast and advocate. Would you mind shooting me an email at some point? Thanks


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: