Log in

Previous Entry | Next Entry

In the media, kung saan has become a definite adverbial phrase, the opposite of what it is. The speaker knows precisely where, when and how many.

Question: If the speaker knows precisely where, when, and how many, why use the conditional kung?

This is where we recommend the definite, self-confident, fat-free, no-frills na. See how self-effacing it is? You almost missed it at the end of that sentence!

read more here: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/454919/where-oh-where-did-kung-saan-come-from


( 3 comments — Leave a comment )
Jul. 31st, 2013 09:12 am (UTC)
I don't know nearly enough Tagalog to say whether that writer is correct in this article and http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/450495/confused-use-of-filipino-in-media-perpetuates-errors, or calling normal language changes they just happen to dislike "incorrect and bad". Can a native speaker opine?
Jul. 31st, 2013 11:00 pm (UTC)
as a native language speaker, i can confess that i encounter tagalog language misuse in local media on an almost daily basis. quite a few of them are prevalent in everyday use (eg "nalang," "panaman" and interchanging "ng" and "nang") but that doesn't mean they're correct.

the use of "kung saan" that the writer spoke of is indeed an issue. it's often used in news reports and such, but the thing is, you just don't use it unless you're referring to a place or an occasion.

however, i take a bit of issue with the writer's example in part 2 of his article: "“Sinipi niya ang bahagi ng Saligang Batas kung saan nakatadhana ang mga tuntunin..." that seems correct, as "bahagi" [portion] in this phrase functions as a location... although i would rather say "kung saan ay nakasaad" [in/on which is stated].

is there anything in the article that bothers you? perhaps a passage that seems like a normal language change, but is being called an error?
Aug. 1st, 2013 07:42 am (UTC)
My Tagalog is much too rudimentary for me to have any valid basis for an objection, or to be bothered by any of the grammar or word use in it, since I need to hit a dictionary for about 3 words out of 4. But I'm familiar with the pattern of misguided language "experts" objecting to accepted language use and calling it "incorrect" just because they don't like it (what Language Log refers to as "prescriptivist poppycock"), because it's common in English, starting with *gag* Strunk and White, and I'm wondering whether that was the case here as well. Which, from what you say, seems to be a mixed picture. Some of which they say is justified, some not so or less so.
( 3 comments — Leave a comment )



Latest Month

August 2013

Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by yoksel