Interesting! So Indonesian does have other undergoer triggers/pivots than just the passive? I was always taught (by Internet sources) that it only had the active and passive voices, and that it has a “simplified” version of the Austronesian alignment. I didn’t know it could be this complex
Brilliant comparison! I noticed you pronounced Indonesian sentences like a native, so I thought you could be Indonesian, which you confirmed later in the video. Was it easy studying Tagalog as an Indonesian?
Hi @@albertovida8745, thank you, really love & appreciate your feedback. Yes correct, I am an Indonesian native speaker. For me because I understand Indonesian ground structures very well and often compare to Tagalog structures, it becomes much easier for me to understand a lot of Tagalog structures that considered unusual for many Tagalog learners. Even for me often it's easier to understand Tagalog sentence structures better than to grasp european languages. It's so interesting that both languages also support SVO and VSO / VOS order but that Indonesian uses SVO as the preferred one, and Tagalog in the opposite has VSO / VOS as the preferred one. There are also a lot of words that share the same root, make it easier to remember them as an Indonesian. However, I believe for many Indonesians who learn Tagalog as a new fresh language not relate them to Indonesian would be a bit challenging, since the structure are similar at ground but only if we really understand the concepts but at glance they look really different, like encrypted.
Hello Language Lovers ❤, How is the topic within this video? Is it challenging to understand it? But hopefully we all still have fun with it. Just a little summary of asymmetrical alignments vs symmetrical alignments: - An asymmetrical language has either (a) transitive voice(s) for Agent Voice(s) or (a) transitive voice(s) for Undergoer Voice(s) but not for both - English for instance follows nominative-accusative alignment so it has a Transitive Agent Voice but intransitive Undergoer Voice through a Passive Voice Construction (Intransitive) - Dyirbal is the opposite follows ergative-absolutive alignment, has multiple Transitive Undergoer Voices but an intransitive Agent Voice through an Anti-Passive Voice Construction (Intransitive) - A symmetrical language has both (a) transitive voice(s) for Agent Voice(s) and (a) transitive voice(s) for Undergoer Voice(s) - For example Tagalog and Indonesian they have both a transitive agent voice and multiple transitive undergoer voices. - The different is Tagalog & Philippine-Type have only ONE transitive Agent Voice, whereas Indonesian & Indonesian-Type have MULTIPLE transitive Agent Voices. Interesting more details are in the videos. Do your languages have agent voice(s) / active voice(s), passive voice(s), anti-passive voice(s), undergoer voice(s)? what kind of voices your languages have? Are they transitive or intransitive? Which alignment does your language follow? Please feel free to share how is it in your languages? Happy Watching, Happy Sharing, Happy Discussing ❤!
Great video! Very well explained and put together. I'm curious how the pivot interacts with relativization in symmetrical voice languages. I've read that in syntactically accusative languages, there is a ban on the A-bar extraction of ACC, (such as for relativization, wh-questions, etc.). In such languages, the passive voice can convert this into a NOM, after which it can be relativized. Thus, the pivot is NOM. In syntactically ergative languages, there is a ban on the A-bar extraction of ERG, so the antipassive voice, (among other strategies), can be used to convert this into an ABS, after which it can be relativized. Thus, the pivot is ABS. I'm curious how Indonesian and Tagalog fit into this. How do these two different types of voice symmetry affect which arguments can be relativized? I have read some literature on the Austronesian Pazeh language in Taiwan, which appears to be symmetric in morphology but ergative in syntax. Sama Southern in the Philippines also shows ergative syntax, much like Dyirbal, but in contrast to most ergative languages in the world that have accusative syntax instead, like Basque. I looked at prof. I Wayan Arka's description of the pivot and relativization in Indonesian, but I don't quite understand how it works yet.
Thank you @quellant6937 for the feedback. Great question. Indonesian and Tagalog both follow syntactic accusativity and syntactic ergativity for Syntactic Pivot Reference, Relative Clause Construction, and also Agent & Undergoer WH-question. In English syntactic accusativity is not applied e.g. for Relative Clause Construction or Agent & Undergoer WH-question, e.g.: The person bought the book. The person that bought the book (follows syntactic accusativity) The book that the person bought (doesn't follow syntactic accusativity should be instead: the book that was bought by the person) Indonesian and Tagalog however follow both symmetry. that person bought the book ID: Orang itu membeli buku itu (AV) or buku itu orang itu beli (UV) TG: Binili ng tao ang libro (UV since the book is definite) for "The person that bought the book" ID: Orang yang membeli buku itu (AV: membeli; Pivot follows what to be relativized) TG: Ang taong bumili ng libro(ng iyon) (AV: bumili; Pivot follows what to be relativized) for "The book that I bought" ID: Buku yang orang itu beli (UV: beli; Pivot folow what to be relativized) TG: Ang librong binili ng tao (UV: beli; Pivot folow what to be relativized) Same for wh-question who bought the book: ID: Siapa yang membeli buku itu (AV) (literally: who was who bought that book) TG: Sino ang bumili ng librong iyon (AV) (literally: who was who bought that book) what did that person buy: ID: Apa yang orang itu beli (UV, literally: what was that the person bought) TG: Ano ang binili ng tao (UV, literally: what was that the person bought) Both for wh-question Tagalog and Indonesian for agents and undergoers, they need to use child clause form "yang …", "ang …" and that child clause form always follow the WH as the pivot, e.g.: "Apa yang orang itu membeli" would be incorrect breaking the syntactic accusativity. but also "Siapa yang beli buku itu" would be incorrect breaking the syntactic ergativity.
@@efelti_langlover Thank you for the detailed reply. After working through each example carefully, I now understand why the final two sentences you provided are ungrammatical. I notice the following: - yang (ID) and iyon (TG) are similar - Indonesian siapa and apa, as well as Tagalog sino and ano, respectively, appear to have similar syntactic restrictions. - itu (ID) roughly corresponds to the distribution of ng (TG), but Indonesian lacks an equivalent for Tagalog ang. Instead, the Indonesian agent appears to be in the clause-initial position for AV. - membeli and beli (ID) correspond to the distribution of bumili and binili (TG). In Tagalog, the distribution of -um- and -in- shows a clear symmetric pattern, whereas with the Indonesian examples you provided, the contrast appears to be between meng- and its absence. From this, I have some questions: - Does meng- and its absence count as a type of symmetry, somewhere on the symmetry continuum? - How do passive di- and the applicative -i affect things? The Wikipedia article on Symmetrical Voice provided an argument for why it claims Indonesian does not have symmetrical voice, providing three Tagalog and three Indonesian examples: (1) Nagpadalá ang mama ng pera sa anák niyá. (2) Pinadalhán ng mama ng pera anák niyá. (3) *Nagpadalhán ang mama ng pera ng anák niyá. (ungrammatical) "The-sender-was the man of money to child his." (AV) "The-sending-place by the man of money was child his." (LV) * "The sender-place was the man of money the child his." (AV+LV) (ungrammatical) [These are my own literal interpretations]. (4) Ayah mengirim uang kepada saya. (AV) (5) Saya dikirimi uang oleh Ayah. (Passive + Applicative) (6) Ayah mengirimi saya uang. (AV + Applicative) "Father sent money to me." "I was-sent-for money by father." "Father sent-for me money." [Again, my own literal analyses]. The author on Wikipedia suggests: "Languages that have symmetrical voice do not have a process that promotes an oblique argument to direct object. Oblique arguments are promoted directly to subject. In the Tagalog examples above, the goal nominal phrase can either be an indirect object, as in (1), or a subject as in (2). However, it cannot become a direct object, or be marked with indirect case, as in (3). Verb forms, such as 'nagpadalhan', which bear both an Actor Voice affix and a non-Actor Voice affix, do not exist in languages that have symmetrical voice. In the Indonesian examples, the goal nominal phrase can be the indirect object, as in (4), and the subject, as in (5). However, unlike in Tagalog, which has symmetrical voice, the goal nominal phrase in Indonesian can be a direct object, as in (6). The preposition kepada disappears in the presence of the applicative suffix -i, and the goal nominal phrase moves from sentence-final position to some verb-adjacent position. In addition, they can behave like regular direct objects and undergo processes such as passivisation, as in (5)." The basis of this author's argument appears to be twofold: - That promoting an oblique to direct object is disallowed in Tagalog, and that it would somehow require multiple voice affixes to accomplish, whereas Indonesian does allow this with meng- and the applicative -i as in (6). - That direct objects in symmetrical voice languages should be barred from passivization, yet they can be passivized in Indonesian. However, I contrast this author's argument with the examples you provided of membeli and beli, where symmetric-like AV and UV constructions can be formed. Is it possible for a language that lacks symmetrical voice to still have symmetric constructions, and therefore lie somewhere on the symmetry continuum? Could Indonesian meng- and its absence count as partial symmetrical voice? How would you grade different levels of symmetry, and by what criteria? Thank you for your time.
Hi @Quellant1, You're welcome, I'm glad to. I just would like to give some correction in what you mentioned you noticed. "yang" (ID) is not similar to "iyon" (TG) "iyon" means that / those (demonstrative pronoun) in TG. The similar one in ID is "itu". "yang" means 2 things in ID: 1st: as relative clause linker in ID, similar to "-ng", "-g", or "na" linker in TG for noun. In English we translate as "that", "who" or "whom". e.g. "orang YANG membeli buku" = "the person THAT bought a book" = "ang taoNG bumili ng libro" 2nd: as nominalization of the Pivot of specific predicate. In English normally translated as "what", "who", "whom", or "which". In Tagalog normally we just use "ang " or "ng ". e.g. "YANG membeli buku" = "WHO bought a book" = "ang/ng bumili ng libro". "YANG ku-beli" = "WHAT I bought" = "ang/ng binili ko". Correct "siapa" & "apa" are similar to "sino" and "ano". "itu" in ID doesn't correspond to "ng" in TG. "itu" corresponds to "iyon" means that / those (demonstrative). In Indonesian we often use "itu" in place of definite article in formal situation. "Buku ITU" means "THAT book". For "THE book" sometimes we translate it to "Buku ITU" as well although we also have "buku-NYA". "nya" can mean 2 things in Indonesian: either definite article "the" or possessive article "his"/"her"/"its". In TG however "ang" and "ng" do not only function as case markers but it also partially mark as definiteness markers. So "ang" often correspond to "the" although TG also has "yung" which means more specific to definite article "the". Correct "meN-" in ID correspond to "-um-" mostly in TG, and correct "Ø-" in ID correspond to mostly "-in-" in TG. so "MEMbeli" to "bUMili" and "Øbeli" to "bINili". I don't think that Indonesian AV and UV position somewhere in symmetry. I believe they are 100% of symmetry similar to Tagalog AV and UV. I believe however that we should separate between behaviors of Indonesian Type languages and Philippine Type Languages, however both are 100%-ly symmetrical. There are some differences in the behaviors of ID-types and PH-types e.g. ID-type separate definiteness not by voice system but by separated definite articles, where voice system in PH-type normally defined by definiteness / specificness. furthermore, ID-types also normally have an intransitive passive construction where PH-types not. furthermore ID-types also separate pivot applicativization from voice system, where PH-types flatten pivot applicativization and voice system together similar to many ergative languages. However although both ID-types and PH-types are symmetrical, it doesn't mean that ID sentence structures have to be the same as TG sentence structures completely. In Indonesian e.g. agent and patient in UV are external arguments, but only patient is external argument in PV (agent is internal argument). I am not 100%ly sure how is it in TG whether Tagalog UV is more to Indonesian UV (using 2 external arguments) or PV (1 external 1 internal) or something else (e.g both internal) Indonesian passive "di-" is also another animal in compare to English passive construction. EN passive construction is always intransitive. ID di- passive construction however can be transitive and intransitive depend on how the speaker wants to utter it to. It is ambitransitive similar to meN- active voice and it is more symmetrical in structure, the transitive one both in AV and PV, they have pivot as an external argument and object as an internal argument in contrast to both as external arguments in UV. (e.g.: AV: ia melihat-ku (PVO), PV: aku dilihat-nya (PVO), UV: aku ia Ølihat (PSV)). Actually I hope I can soon create another video about the details of Indonesian voice system. Indonesian "-i" and "-kan" are not voice affixes but applicativization affixes. e.g.: - UV: "batu itu ku-lemparkan" (pivot is theme undergoer): "I threw that stone" - UV: "Ia ku-lempari (pivot is dative undergoer): "I threw him (something)" They also have AV and PV pairs: - AV: "aku melemparkan batu itu", and PV "batu itu dilemparkan oleh-ku" - AV: "aku melempari-nya" and PV "Ia dilempari oleh-ku" ID-Types as I mentioned in 14:53 has AV pairs of each UV as in your examples (mengirim, mengirimi, mengirimkan are all AV). PH-types only have 1 AV no such ungrammatical nagpadalhan. ID-Types have separated voice markers (Ø-, meN-, di-), and applicativization (-Ø, -an, -i), in contrast PH-types fusion voice marker and applicativization together (-um-, -in, -an, i-). I mentioned this behavior in 17:11 (Prof. I Wayan Arka's A-U Continuum Chart). does it answer your questions? Please feel free if you have more questions 😉
And yes Indonesian doesn't have correspondent ang ng case markers. Indonesian in general does not have any case markers, that’s why many people think Indonesian at glance follows neutral alignment or based on productive meN voice to follow accusative alignment. But it is simply not true. Indonesian case system can be traced through Indonesian pronoun cases, and voice system and word orders, and it has at least 5 implicit cases (pivot case, accusative case (primary-object case), ergative case, secondary-object case, and genitive case) Indonesian neutral alignment hypothesis is not true since specific pronouns can only be used within special cases. Indonesian accusative alignment is also incomplete since Indonesian also follows ergative alignment in most area except that Indonesian does not have regular intransitive anti-passive voice construction. However since Indonesian meN- is ambitransitive anti-passive is not required in Indonesian language
@@efelti_langlover That answers my questions very well! Thank you for the replies and corrections. I'm starting to understand more clearly, but there are still some gaps in my knowledge. I would be very interested to see a video on the details of the Indonesian voice system / transitivity, as well as definiteness / specificity. The implicit case theory is plausible based on what I've seen syntactically, but I'll have to do more research to understand it fully.
I think you should compare both languages on the same thought of sentence: Cat / Birth / Kittens / Nine -Ang Pusa ay nanganak ng Siyam na Kuting. -Ang Siyam na Kuting ay isinilang ng Pusa. -Ipinanganak ng Pusa ang Siyam na Kuting. -Isinilang ang Siyam na Kuting ng Pusa. -x1000 more variations Its very different from the current linguistic theory for it only tackles about 3-5% of what Tagalog really is. Filipino is like 30% Tagalog (both in voicabulary and grammar) in the 90s, but today its more like 15% of Tagalog. So learning Filipino and mistaking it for Tagalog will only leave you a half baked knowledge on Austronesian language/alignment...
I think I figured out why "Kumain ang pusa ko ng mga isda ko" sounds wrong. It’s because possessive pronouns like ko imply definiteness, while ng is an indefinite marker (like "a" or "some"). In Tagalog, possession makes something specific, so it doesn’t fit with something indefinite. For example: Ang anak ko translates to "the son mine," where ang (the) matches the definiteness of ko (mine). Kumain ang pusa ko ng isda (My cat ate some fish) sounds fine because the fish is indefinite. Kinain ng pusa ko ang mga isda ko (My cat ate my fish) also works because ang matches the possessive ko. But ng mga isda ko feels unnatural, like saying "a fish mine" in English. That’s why it sounds off - the markers and possessives don’t align.
Hi thank you for your feedback. I'm learning as well. Maybe I was a little bit too generic forcing sentences with ang and ng with possessive articles, to create more natural sentence like "naglaba AKO NG mga damit KO" and "nilabhan KO ANG mga damit KO" for something like (some) clothes of mine vs the clothes of mine, similar to a friend of mine vs the friend of mine.
Sorry, now I’m thinking you’re right. I repeated "Kumain ang pusa ko ng mga isda ko" in my head so many times, and now it makes sense. I think it sounded unnatural at first because maybe I’m used to hearing isda pronounced as isdâ, especially when it’s at the end of a sentence. I was expecting it to stop there, like Kumain ang pusa ko ng mga isdâ, because of the glottal stop and the actor focus conjugation. The glottal stop cancels when there’s a word following it, and if it's the circumflex, it becomes the acute accent, while if it’s the grave one, it just disappears. That’s probably why ko seemed forced to include in the sentence. Maybe object focus is preferred here, but I understand now that both can be used. Thanks for your explanation!
Interesting! So Indonesian does have other undergoer triggers/pivots than just the passive? I was always taught (by Internet sources) that it only had the active and passive voices, and that it has a “simplified” version of the Austronesian alignment. I didn’t know it could be this complex
Brilliant comparison!
I noticed you pronounced Indonesian sentences like a native, so I thought you could be Indonesian, which you confirmed later in the video. Was it easy studying Tagalog as an Indonesian?
Hi @@albertovida8745, thank you, really love & appreciate your feedback. Yes correct, I am an Indonesian native speaker. For me because I understand Indonesian ground structures very well and often compare to Tagalog structures, it becomes much easier for me to understand a lot of Tagalog structures that considered unusual for many Tagalog learners. Even for me often it's easier to understand Tagalog sentence structures better than to grasp european languages. It's so interesting that both languages also support SVO and VSO / VOS order but that Indonesian uses SVO as the preferred one, and Tagalog in the opposite has VSO / VOS as the preferred one. There are also a lot of words that share the same root, make it easier to remember them as an Indonesian. However, I believe for many Indonesians who learn Tagalog as a new fresh language not relate them to Indonesian would be a bit challenging, since the structure are similar at ground but only if we really understand the concepts but at glance they look really different, like encrypted.
Hello Language Lovers ❤,
How is the topic within this video? Is it challenging to understand it?
But hopefully we all still have fun with it.
Just a little summary of asymmetrical alignments vs symmetrical alignments:
- An asymmetrical language has either (a) transitive voice(s) for Agent Voice(s) or (a) transitive voice(s) for Undergoer Voice(s) but not for both
- English for instance follows nominative-accusative alignment so it has a Transitive Agent Voice but intransitive Undergoer Voice through a Passive Voice Construction (Intransitive)
- Dyirbal is the opposite follows ergative-absolutive alignment, has multiple Transitive Undergoer Voices but an intransitive Agent Voice through an Anti-Passive Voice Construction (Intransitive)
- A symmetrical language has both (a) transitive voice(s) for Agent Voice(s) and (a) transitive voice(s) for Undergoer Voice(s)
- For example Tagalog and Indonesian they have both a transitive agent voice and multiple transitive undergoer voices.
- The different is Tagalog & Philippine-Type have only ONE transitive Agent Voice, whereas Indonesian & Indonesian-Type have MULTIPLE transitive Agent Voices.
Interesting more details are in the videos.
Do your languages have agent voice(s) / active voice(s), passive voice(s), anti-passive voice(s), undergoer voice(s)?
what kind of voices your languages have?
Are they transitive or intransitive?
Which alignment does your language follow?
Please feel free to share how is it in your languages?
Happy Watching, Happy Sharing, Happy Discussing ❤!
Great video! Very well explained and put together.
I'm curious how the pivot interacts with relativization in symmetrical voice languages.
I've read that in syntactically accusative languages, there is a ban on the A-bar extraction of ACC, (such as for relativization, wh-questions, etc.). In such languages, the passive voice can convert this into a NOM, after which it can be relativized. Thus, the pivot is NOM.
In syntactically ergative languages, there is a ban on the A-bar extraction of ERG, so the antipassive voice, (among other strategies), can be used to convert this into an ABS, after which it can be relativized. Thus, the pivot is ABS.
I'm curious how Indonesian and Tagalog fit into this. How do these two different types of voice symmetry affect which arguments can be relativized?
I have read some literature on the Austronesian Pazeh language in Taiwan, which appears to be symmetric in morphology but ergative in syntax. Sama Southern in the Philippines also shows ergative syntax, much like Dyirbal, but in contrast to most ergative languages in the world that have accusative syntax instead, like Basque.
I looked at prof. I Wayan Arka's description of the pivot and relativization in Indonesian, but I don't quite understand how it works yet.
Thank you @quellant6937 for the feedback.
Great question.
Indonesian and Tagalog both follow syntactic accusativity and syntactic ergativity for Syntactic Pivot Reference, Relative Clause Construction, and also Agent & Undergoer WH-question.
In English syntactic accusativity is not applied e.g. for Relative Clause Construction or Agent & Undergoer WH-question, e.g.:
The person bought the book.
The person that bought the book (follows syntactic accusativity)
The book that the person bought (doesn't follow syntactic accusativity should be instead: the book that was bought by the person)
Indonesian and Tagalog however follow both symmetry.
that person bought the book
ID: Orang itu membeli buku itu (AV) or buku itu orang itu beli (UV)
TG: Binili ng tao ang libro (UV since the book is definite)
for "The person that bought the book"
ID: Orang yang membeli buku itu (AV: membeli; Pivot follows what to be relativized)
TG: Ang taong bumili ng libro(ng iyon) (AV: bumili; Pivot follows what to be relativized)
for "The book that I bought"
ID: Buku yang orang itu beli (UV: beli; Pivot folow what to be relativized)
TG: Ang librong binili ng tao (UV: beli; Pivot folow what to be relativized)
Same for wh-question
who bought the book:
ID: Siapa yang membeli buku itu (AV) (literally: who was who bought that book)
TG: Sino ang bumili ng librong iyon (AV) (literally: who was who bought that book)
what did that person buy:
ID: Apa yang orang itu beli (UV, literally: what was that the person bought)
TG: Ano ang binili ng tao (UV, literally: what was that the person bought)
Both for wh-question Tagalog and Indonesian for agents and undergoers, they need to use child clause form "yang …", "ang …" and that child clause form always follow the WH as the pivot, e.g.: "Apa yang orang itu membeli" would be incorrect breaking the syntactic accusativity. but also "Siapa yang beli buku itu" would be incorrect breaking the syntactic ergativity.
@@efelti_langlover
Thank you for the detailed reply. After working through each example carefully, I now understand why the final two sentences you provided are ungrammatical.
I notice the following:
- yang (ID) and iyon (TG) are similar
- Indonesian siapa and apa, as well as Tagalog sino and ano, respectively, appear to have similar syntactic restrictions.
- itu (ID) roughly corresponds to the distribution of ng (TG), but Indonesian lacks an equivalent for Tagalog ang. Instead, the Indonesian agent appears to be in the clause-initial position for AV.
- membeli and beli (ID) correspond to the distribution of bumili and binili (TG). In Tagalog, the distribution of -um- and -in- shows a clear symmetric pattern, whereas with the Indonesian examples you provided, the contrast appears to be between meng- and its absence.
From this, I have some questions:
- Does meng- and its absence count as a type of symmetry, somewhere on the symmetry continuum?
- How do passive di- and the applicative -i affect things?
The Wikipedia article on Symmetrical Voice provided an argument for why it claims Indonesian does not have symmetrical voice, providing three Tagalog and three Indonesian examples:
(1) Nagpadalá ang mama ng pera sa anák niyá.
(2) Pinadalhán ng mama ng pera anák niyá.
(3) *Nagpadalhán ang mama ng pera ng anák niyá. (ungrammatical)
"The-sender-was the man of money to child his." (AV)
"The-sending-place by the man of money was child his." (LV)
* "The sender-place was the man of money the child his." (AV+LV) (ungrammatical)
[These are my own literal interpretations].
(4) Ayah mengirim uang kepada saya. (AV)
(5) Saya dikirimi uang oleh Ayah. (Passive + Applicative)
(6) Ayah mengirimi saya uang. (AV + Applicative)
"Father sent money to me."
"I was-sent-for money by father."
"Father sent-for me money."
[Again, my own literal analyses].
The author on Wikipedia suggests:
"Languages that have symmetrical voice do not have a process that promotes an oblique argument to direct object. Oblique arguments are promoted directly to subject.
In the Tagalog examples above, the goal nominal phrase can either be an indirect object, as in (1), or a subject as in (2). However, it cannot become a direct object, or be marked with indirect case, as in (3). Verb forms, such as 'nagpadalhan', which bear both an Actor Voice affix and a non-Actor Voice affix, do not exist in languages that have symmetrical voice.
In the Indonesian examples, the goal nominal phrase can be the indirect object, as in (4), and the subject, as in (5). However, unlike in Tagalog, which has symmetrical voice, the goal nominal phrase in Indonesian can be a direct object, as in (6). The preposition kepada disappears in the presence of the applicative suffix -i, and the goal nominal phrase moves from sentence-final position to some verb-adjacent position. In addition, they can behave like regular direct objects and undergo processes such as passivisation, as in (5)."
The basis of this author's argument appears to be twofold:
- That promoting an oblique to direct object is disallowed in Tagalog, and that it would somehow require multiple voice affixes to accomplish, whereas Indonesian does allow this with meng- and the applicative -i as in (6).
- That direct objects in symmetrical voice languages should be barred from passivization, yet they can be passivized in Indonesian.
However, I contrast this author's argument with the examples you provided of membeli and beli, where symmetric-like AV and UV constructions can be formed.
Is it possible for a language that lacks symmetrical voice to still have symmetric constructions, and therefore lie somewhere on the symmetry continuum? Could Indonesian meng- and its absence count as partial symmetrical voice?
How would you grade different levels of symmetry, and by what criteria? Thank you for your time.
Hi @Quellant1,
You're welcome, I'm glad to.
I just would like to give some correction in what you mentioned you noticed.
"yang" (ID) is not similar to "iyon" (TG)
"iyon" means that / those (demonstrative pronoun) in TG. The similar one in ID is "itu".
"yang" means 2 things in ID:
1st: as relative clause linker in ID, similar to "-ng", "-g", or "na" linker in TG for noun. In English we translate as "that", "who" or "whom". e.g. "orang YANG membeli buku" = "the person THAT bought a book" = "ang taoNG bumili ng libro"
2nd: as nominalization of the Pivot of specific predicate. In English normally translated as "what", "who", "whom", or "which". In Tagalog normally we just use "ang " or "ng ". e.g. "YANG membeli buku" = "WHO bought a book" = "ang/ng bumili ng libro". "YANG ku-beli" = "WHAT I bought" = "ang/ng binili ko".
Correct "siapa" & "apa" are similar to "sino" and "ano".
"itu" in ID doesn't correspond to "ng" in TG. "itu" corresponds to "iyon" means that / those (demonstrative).
In Indonesian we often use "itu" in place of definite article in formal situation. "Buku ITU" means "THAT book". For "THE book" sometimes we translate it to "Buku ITU" as well although we also have "buku-NYA". "nya" can mean 2 things in Indonesian: either definite article "the" or possessive article "his"/"her"/"its".
In TG however "ang" and "ng" do not only function as case markers but it also partially mark as definiteness markers. So "ang" often correspond to "the" although TG also has "yung" which means more specific to definite article "the".
Correct "meN-" in ID correspond to "-um-" mostly in TG, and correct "Ø-" in ID correspond to mostly "-in-" in TG. so "MEMbeli" to "bUMili" and "Øbeli" to "bINili".
I don't think that Indonesian AV and UV position somewhere in symmetry. I believe they are 100% of symmetry similar to Tagalog AV and UV. I believe however that we should separate between behaviors of Indonesian Type languages and Philippine Type Languages, however both are 100%-ly symmetrical. There are some differences in the behaviors of ID-types and PH-types e.g. ID-type separate definiteness not by voice system but by separated definite articles, where voice system in PH-type normally defined by definiteness / specificness. furthermore, ID-types also normally have an intransitive passive construction where PH-types not. furthermore ID-types also separate pivot applicativization from voice system, where PH-types flatten pivot applicativization and voice system together similar to many ergative languages.
However although both ID-types and PH-types are symmetrical, it doesn't mean that ID sentence structures have to be the same as TG sentence structures completely. In Indonesian e.g. agent and patient in UV are external arguments, but only patient is external argument in PV (agent is internal argument). I am not 100%ly sure how is it in TG whether Tagalog UV is more to Indonesian UV (using 2 external arguments) or PV (1 external 1 internal) or something else (e.g both internal)
Indonesian passive "di-" is also another animal in compare to English passive construction. EN passive construction is always intransitive. ID di- passive construction however can be transitive and intransitive depend on how the speaker wants to utter it to. It is ambitransitive similar to meN- active voice and it is more symmetrical in structure, the transitive one both in AV and PV, they have pivot as an external argument and object as an internal argument in contrast to both as external arguments in UV. (e.g.: AV: ia melihat-ku (PVO), PV: aku dilihat-nya (PVO), UV: aku ia Ølihat (PSV)). Actually I hope I can soon create another video about the details of Indonesian voice system.
Indonesian "-i" and "-kan" are not voice affixes but applicativization affixes. e.g.:
- UV: "batu itu ku-lemparkan" (pivot is theme undergoer): "I threw that stone"
- UV: "Ia ku-lempari (pivot is dative undergoer): "I threw him (something)"
They also have AV and PV pairs:
- AV: "aku melemparkan batu itu", and PV "batu itu dilemparkan oleh-ku"
- AV: "aku melempari-nya" and PV "Ia dilempari oleh-ku"
ID-Types as I mentioned in 14:53 has AV pairs of each UV as in your examples (mengirim, mengirimi, mengirimkan are all AV). PH-types only have 1 AV no such ungrammatical nagpadalhan. ID-Types have separated voice markers (Ø-, meN-, di-), and applicativization (-Ø, -an, -i), in contrast PH-types fusion voice marker and applicativization together (-um-, -in, -an, i-). I mentioned this behavior in 17:11 (Prof. I Wayan Arka's A-U Continuum Chart).
does it answer your questions?
Please feel free if you have more questions 😉
And yes Indonesian doesn't have correspondent ang ng case markers. Indonesian in general does not have any case markers, that’s why many people think Indonesian at glance follows neutral alignment or based on productive meN voice to follow accusative alignment. But it is simply not true.
Indonesian case system can be traced through Indonesian pronoun cases, and voice system and word orders, and it has at least 5 implicit cases (pivot case, accusative case (primary-object case), ergative case, secondary-object case, and genitive case)
Indonesian neutral alignment hypothesis is not true since specific pronouns can only be used within special cases. Indonesian accusative alignment is also incomplete since Indonesian also follows ergative alignment in most area except that Indonesian does not have regular intransitive anti-passive voice construction. However since Indonesian meN- is ambitransitive anti-passive is not required in Indonesian language
@@efelti_langlover That answers my questions very well! Thank you for the replies and corrections. I'm starting to understand more clearly, but there are still some gaps in my knowledge. I would be very interested to see a video on the details of the Indonesian voice system / transitivity, as well as definiteness / specificity. The implicit case theory is plausible based on what I've seen syntactically, but I'll have to do more research to understand it fully.
I think you should compare both languages on the same thought of sentence:
Cat / Birth / Kittens / Nine
-Ang Pusa ay nanganak ng Siyam na Kuting.
-Ang Siyam na Kuting ay isinilang ng Pusa.
-Ipinanganak ng Pusa ang Siyam na Kuting.
-Isinilang ang Siyam na Kuting ng Pusa.
-x1000 more variations
Its very different from the current linguistic theory for it only tackles about 3-5% of what Tagalog really is.
Filipino is like 30% Tagalog (both in voicabulary and grammar) in the 90s, but today its more like 15% of Tagalog.
So learning Filipino and mistaking it for Tagalog will only leave you a half baked knowledge on Austronesian language/alignment...
Thank you for the precious feedback.
The sentence "Kumain ang pusa ko ng mga isda ko" sounds wrong to my ears
I think I figured out why "Kumain ang pusa ko ng mga isda ko" sounds wrong. It’s because possessive pronouns like ko imply definiteness, while ng is an indefinite marker (like "a" or "some"). In Tagalog, possession makes something specific, so it doesn’t fit with something indefinite.
For example:
Ang anak ko translates to "the son mine," where ang (the) matches the definiteness of ko (mine).
Kumain ang pusa ko ng isda (My cat ate some fish) sounds fine because the fish is indefinite.
Kinain ng pusa ko ang mga isda ko (My cat ate my fish) also works because ang matches the possessive ko.
But ng mga isda ko feels unnatural, like saying "a fish mine" in English. That’s why it sounds off - the markers and possessives don’t align.
Hi thank you for your feedback. I'm learning as well. Maybe I was a little bit too generic forcing sentences with ang and ng with possessive articles, to create more natural sentence like "naglaba AKO NG mga damit KO" and "nilabhan KO ANG mga damit KO" for something like (some) clothes of mine vs the clothes of mine, similar to a friend of mine vs the friend of mine.
Sorry, now I’m thinking you’re right. I repeated "Kumain ang pusa ko ng mga isda ko" in my head so many times, and now it makes sense. I think it sounded unnatural at first because maybe I’m used to hearing isda pronounced as isdâ, especially when it’s at the end of a sentence. I was expecting it to stop there, like Kumain ang pusa ko ng mga isdâ, because of the glottal stop and the actor focus conjugation. The glottal stop cancels when there’s a word following it, and if it's the circumflex, it becomes the acute accent, while if it’s the grave one, it just disappears. That’s probably why ko seemed forced to include in the sentence. Maybe object focus is preferred here, but I understand now that both can be used. Thanks for your explanation!
@ Thanks, glad to hear from your feedback. I'm happy to hear from Tagalog & Filipino speaking people.