Some Remarks on Unaffixed Verbs in Tagalog and Kinaray-a

Amerila, Zara Mazelene A.

Dizon, Dannah Kate A.
Pangilinan, Alyzza Joie D.

1. INTRODUCTION

One controversial feature of Philippine-type languages is the classification of its root forms.
Recent studies (Nolasco, 2011; Foley, 1998) considered them as pre-categorial or neutral forms
individually or alone. Their classification can be ascertained through affixation or their syntactic
distribution. Consequently, it is difficult to determine the argument structure of these forms.
Argument structure is only introduced when the roots are derived with the voice markers or use in
a sentence or phrase (Foley, 1998). There are instances, however, that roots occur in sentences in
their bare or unaffixed forms and their argument structures are quite distinguishable (in
comparison to its affixed counterpart).
This paper looks into the case of Tagalog and Kinaray-a root predicates in corpus-based and
literary constructions. Specifically, using Vendler’s (1967) event classes, it aims to: (1) present new
analyses of root predicates, as opposed to previous claims that they are pseudo-verbs, (2) prove
that they are verbs, statives in particular, and (3) provide an explanation as to why these unaffixed
verbs occur. This paper will present evidence that Tagalog constructions with roots or unaffixed
forms contain the same argument structure as with their full intransitive and transitive
counterparts. In the case of Kinaray-a, the use of negators will prove that these forms are indeed
verbs due to their being strictly ‘categorically strained’ nature (Zubiri, 2011).
Studies have been made on root forms in Tagalog such as those by Schachter and Otanes
(1972), Constantino (1994), Cena (2006) and Himmelman (2008). However, little research has
been done on root forms, specifically on root predicates in Tagalog and none has been found for
Kinaray-a. This research will serve as material for future researches on root forms, particularly root
predicates on Tagalog and Kinaray-a.

2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Concerning Tagalog, roots forms are well-studied. One of this is Schachter and Otanes’
(1972) claim that these forms are called pseudo-verbs. These are special adjectives which have
verb-like meanings able to be taken as unaffixed adjectives or verbs that show no variation in
aspect. The authors specifically mentioned eight pseudo verbs and these are ayaw, kailangan, dapat,
gusto, ibig, maaari, nais, and pwede. They occur mostly in sentence-initial position, and sometimes
in other positions just like other adjectivals. They are included in the group of adjectives due to
their morphological behavior being the same as adjectives wherein they attach na/ng to show
intensification (Schachter and Otanes, 1972).
Another study by Constantino (1994), suggests that it is important to look at the features of
root predicates such as the stress, intensification, and reiteration in order to properly classify
them. It is difficult, however, to classify which category root forms belong to because of the lack of
affixes. By looking at their syntactic and semantic relationship with their subject and complements,
it was said that these were static forms of verb denoting the condition of subject as permanent or
not. Furthermore, they have the same meaning with the affixed form of the verb. In general,
Constantino (1994) referred to root forms as verbs.
Cena (2006), on the other hand, argues that predication discriminates among lexical
categories. He states that not only nouns and adjectives can become predicate heads but [reduced
forms] of stative verbs as well. In order for root forms to become predicate heads, they must carry
“categorial information”. Since noun roots and adjective roots (such as bare adjectives and color
terms) are already established predicate heads, root verbs and some adjective root forms must be
derived from a complex form belonging to a lexical word class.
Lastly, a claim by Himmelman (2008) suggests that the morpho-lexical categories of root
predicates are classified depending on the affixes these roots take. He argues that that there are two
classes of Tagalog roots: the HAVE-formations (Class A) and the “BECOME-formations” (class B.)
Roots belonging to the first class are “THING roots”, referring to things, animals and natural
phenomena. While the roots belonging to Class B are “PROPERTY roots”, referring to states,
processes, and actions. Class A formations characterize what the root means, while class B shows
the getting into a certain state or having the ability to achieve a certain state. In simple terms,
before the roots undergo formations, they simply denote a state. Moreover, the said formations
serve as grounds for having a single morpho-lexical category to which every Tagalog root belongs,
dismissing the idea of precategoriality in Tagalog.
On Kinaray-a, due to the scarce resources, only one study fits in the scope of this research.
In Zorc’s The Bisayan dialects of the Philippines (1977), root forms such as dapat, kinahanglan,
kilala, pwede, gusto, man-an, etc. were under the classification of pseudo verbs. According to him,
pseudo verbs are “pre-clausal modal particles” that occur with actors and complements (p. 144).

3. METHODOLOGY
The primary data for Tagalog were taken from McFarland’s (2008) A Corpus-based
Dictionary of Filipino. The root forms chosen for the sentential data are among the Top 2000
headwords from the same author’s (1989) A Frequency Count of Pilipino. Some of the data are also

2
taken from the social media platform, Twitter. In Kinaray-a, primary sentential data are from short
stories, poems and stage play scripts from online and printed resources and some were also taken
from Twitter. The rest of the constructions were taken from one of the researchers who is a native
speaker of Kinaray-a from San Jose de Buenavista, Antique.

4. THEORETICAL APPROACH
The analyses that we provide are based on Vendler’s (1967) five event classes. The main
assumptions of this approach are (1) all propositions contain eventuality, of which is a lexical
proposition, (2) there are two divisions of eventualities: state and events, (3) state is an eventuality
where there is no perceptible change, and (4) events denote that something changes. Events can be
further divided to activity (does not denote a goal), accomplishment (denotes a goal and duration)
and achievement (does not denote duration) and semelfactive (momentary or punctual verbs that
occur once and lasts for a short time).
In line with this, we will argue that root predicates are verbs, specifically stative verbs,
which display both characteristics of verbs and adjectives. We believe that in a continuum where
verbs and adjectives are at opposite ends, root predicates are in the middle but are more inclined to
the former.

5. ANALYSIS OF DATA
It is true that root predicates display similar morphological behaviors with those of
adjectives. They can occupy slots that are occupied by adjectives. Consider the following examples.
(1) Gandang-ganda ako kay Nadine sa picture niyang ito.1
‘I find Nadine really pretty in this picture of hers.’
(2) Hangang-hanga ako kay Nadine sa picture niyang ito.
‘I adore Nadine so much in this picture of hers.’
(3) Oo, hindi siya ganun kaganda.2
‘She is not that pretty.’
(4) Oo, hindi siya ganun kakilala.
‘She is not that well known.’
In example (1), hanga can replace the adjective ganda in example (2) and can still be
grammatical. The same goes for (3) where kilala replaces the same adjective ganda in (4). However,
aside from the morphological behavior of root predicates, it is also important to look at the
syntactic and semantic structures of their sentences to proper analyze them. In this section, we look

1
Tweet from Jayce Mars last May 23, 2016. Retrieved from www.twitter.com/Jayce_Mars
2
Tweet from Aubs last May 20, 2016. Retrieved from www.twitter.com/ohhhbreey
3
at the linguistic features and devices that reveal how we should treat root predicates. Tagalong will
be analyzed via argument structure while Kinaray-a will be treated through negation.

5.1. Tagalog
In Tagalog, internal evidence justifies the appearance of roots in the predicate position of a
Tagalog sentence. Basically, data reveals that the argument structure of an affixed verb predicate is
the same as that of the root predicates, as also mentioned in Cena’s (2009) study.
Tagalog and other Philippine languages follow the ergative-absolutive system of case
marking or ergativity (Nolasco, 2003). Argument structure indicates the relationship of the
predicate to its subject. In this study, Nolasco’s (2011) concepts of S, A and O will be adopted. The S
being the source of the action and most affected entity in an intransitive clause. The A being the
source of the action, separate from the O or the most affected entity in a transitive clause.
With this in mind, we can now examine the transitive and intransitive Tagalog sentences
with affixed and root predicates.

(5a) N.(k)a-tanaw niya ang pag-alis ni Larry kasama

PFV.(k)a-TR-see 3ERG.SG ABS NOM-leave ERG.PER Larry with
si Doris.
ABS.PER Doris.
‘He/She saw Larry(‘s) leaving with Doris.’

(5b) ∅-Tanaw niya ang pag-alis ni Larry kasama si Doris.

∅-see 3ERG.SG ABS NOM-leave ERG.PER Larry with ABS.PER Doris
‘He/She is in a position where he/she sees Larry(‘s) leaving together with Doris.’

In example (5a), niya is the most agentive argument (A) of the transitive verbs natanaw and
it takes the ergative case. Meanwhile, ang pag-alis is the most patientive argument (O) of the same
transitive verb, and takes the absolutive case. Notice, however, that the grammatical cases are not
changed when the root predicate tanaw is used in example (5b). The difference between the two
constructions is that the first means there is an activity of seeing which is performed. There exists a
change from the event of not seeing which changes to being able to see. While, the second refers to
the actual state wherein the nominal is perceived as can be seen, and no change can be observed.

(6a) N.(k)a-rinig niya ang madalang ngunit malalim na

PVF.(k)a-TR-hear 3ERG.SG ABS infrequent but STAT-deep LKR

4
 paghinga ni Rouel.
NOM-breathe OBL Rouel
‘He/She heard the infrequent but deep breathing of Rouel.’

(6b) ∅-Dinig niya ang madalang ngunit malalim na paghinga

∅-hear 3ERG.SG ABS infrequent but STAT-deep LKR NOM-breathe
ni Rouel.
OBL Rouel
‘He/She in a state where he/she hears the infrequent but deep breathing of
Rouel.’

The same applies in other examples. In (6a) and (6b), niya, as the most agentive argument of
the transitive verb narinig and dinig, takes the ergative case, while ang madalang ngunit malalalim
na paghinga takes the absolutive case. Looking at the meaning of these constructions, the former
means the activity of hearing already happened. A change in the event exists from not hearing to
being able to hear. In contrast to this, a state of hearing is denoted by the latter sentence, wherein
no change can be observed.

(7a) N.(k)a-pansin nga ni Lerma ang mga ‘yun.

PFV.TR-notice PRT ERG.PER Lerma ABS PL DIST.ABS
‘Lerma really noticed those.’

(7b) ∅-Pansin nga ni Lerma ang mga ‘yun.

∅-notice PRT ERG.PER Lerma ABS PL DIST.ABS
‘Lerma is in a state where she really notices those.’

In (7a) and (7b), the ergative case is taken by ni Lerma, as the most agentive argument (A)
of the affixed verb napansin and root verb pansin. While, the absolutive case is taken by ang mga
‘yun, which is the most patientive argument (O). The first sentence means that the act of noticing is
done by the Lerma. There is a change perceived in the action, from not noticing to noticing. On the
other hand, the second sentence refers to t Lerma as being in a state of being able to notice.

(8a) N.(k)a-batid ni Ric ang kanya=ng pagkakamali.

PFV.TR-know ERG.PER Ric ABS 3SG.OBL=LKR wrongdoing.
‘Ric knew his wrongdoing.’

5
 (8b) ∅-Batid ni Ric ang kanya=ng pagkakamali.
∅-know ERG.PER Ric ABS 3SG.OBL=LKR wrongdoing.
‘Ric is in a state of knowing his wrongdoing.’

Lastly, in (8a) and (8b), the most agentive argument (A) of the affixed verb nabatid and root
verb batid is Ric, which takes the ergative case. In both (8a) and (8b), the most patientive argument
(O) ang mga ‘yun takes the absolutive case. An activity of knowing is realized in the first
construction, while a state of knowing is stated in the second construction. The former shows a
change from not knowing to knowing, while the latter only shows the actual state of being
knowledgeable.
The case for (5-8a) sentences remains the same as that of the (5-8b) sentences. In addition,
phrases marked as oblique (OBL) appear in sentences (5a-6b), while no oblique can be observed in
sentences (7a-8b).
It is important to note that the grammatical cases are not changed, even if the predicate is
an affixed verb or a root verb. In Tagalog transitive constructions, the arguments of the affixed
verbs and the root verbs take the same grammatical case.
On the other hand, the sentences considered as intransitive have only one obligatory
argument (S) or the most affected entity and an optional oblique (OBL). In the following examples,
the only obligatory argument (S) takes the absolutive case (ABS). Consider the following:

(9a) N.(k)a-balot ng benda ang ulo nito.

PRF.INTR-wrap OBL bandage ABS head PROX.OBL
‘The bandage wrapped its head.’

(9b) ∅-Balot ng benda ang ulo nito.

∅-wrap OBL bandage ABS head PROX.OBL
‘Its head is wrapped in a bandage.’

Examples (9a) and (9b) can be analyzed as constructions which are semantically transitive,
but grammatically intransitive. Ang ulo nito takes the absolutive case, as it is the most affective
argument (s) of the affixed verb nabalot in (9a) and of the root verb balot in (9b). Ng benda is
marked as an oblique, because it appears to be the instrument in doing the action of wrapping. The
activity of wrapping is done in the first sentence, while the state of being wrapped is indicated by
the second sentence. The former reveals a change from being unwrapped to being wrapped, while
no change is indicated in the latter.

6
 (10a) B<um>-agsak ang telon.
<INTR>.PFV-fall ABS textile
‘The textile has fallen.’

(10b) ∅-Bagsak ang telon

∅-fall ABS textile
‘The textile is in a fallen position.’

Ang telon appears to be the most affected entity (S) by the inflected verb bumagsak in (10a)
and also by the root verb bagsak in (10b). Looking at the meaning, it appears that there is
something which caused the telon to undergo falling in the first sentence. There is a change of the
initial position to the final position. On the other hand, the second sentence means that the telon is
in a fallen position already.

(11a) T<um>u-tutol ang kanyang ina.

<INTR>IPFV~oppose ABS 3OBL.SG=LKR mother.
‘His/her mother opposes.’

(11b) ∅-Tutol ang kanya=ng ina.

∅-oppose ABS 3OBL.SG=LKR mother
‘His/her mother is in an opposing stance.’

In (11a) and (11b), ang kanyang ina is the most affected entity (S) by the inflected verb
tumutol and by the root verb tutol respectively. In the first sentence, there is an activity of
opposition being done by ang kanyang ina. There is a continuing event of opposition. However, the
second sentence implies the actual state of being in an opposite stance, wherein no change happens.
(12a) N.(k)a-talo ako sa sugal.
PFV.INTR-lose 1ABS.SG OBL gambling
‘I lost in gambling.’

(12b) ∅-Talo ako sa sugal.

lose 1ABS OBL gambling
‘I am in a loser’s state in gambling. ‘

In (12a), ako is the most affected entity (S) by the inflected verb natalo, while in (12b) it is
also the most affected entity (S) by the root verb talo. In the first sentence, an event of losing is

7
already realized. There is a change from not being a loser to being one. On the other hand, the
meaning evoked by the second sentence is the state of being in a loser’s position, not the event of
losing.

(13a) N.(k)a-tanggap ako sa kumpanya nina Mauro.

PFV.INTR-accept 1ABS.SG OBL company OBL.PL Mauro
‘I was hired in Mauro’s company.’

(13b) ∅-Tanggap ako sa kumpanya nina Mauro.

∅-accept 1ABS.SG OBL company OBL.PL Mauro
‘I am in a state of acceptance in Mauro’s company.’

In (13a) and (13b), ako is also the most affected entity (S) by the affixed verb natanggap
and by the root verb tanggap respectively. The event of hiring which already happened is meant by
the first sentence, a change from not being hired to being hired. The other sentence refers to the
actual state of being hired or accepted.

(14a) G<in>awa-∅ ito sa kahoy.

<PFV.TR>make-∅ PROX.ABS OBL wood
‘This was made out of wood.’

(14b) ∅-Gawa ito sa kahoy.

∅-make PROX.ABS OBL wood
‘This is in a state of wood-made.’

Lastly, ito is the most affected entity (S) by the affixed verb ginawa in (14a) and by the root
verb gawa in (14b). The first sentence points out the deliberate activity of making the referent out
of wood. There is a change on creation from a raw material to become an output of the activity. In
contrast, the second sentence only means to say that the referent is in a wood-made state.
Also, notice that all the preceding intransitive sentences have an OBL except for the
sentences (10a-11b). In (9a) and (9b), ng benda is the OBL. In (12a) and (12b), the phrase sa sugal
is an OBL. In (13a) and (13b), the OBL appears to be the phrase sa kumpanya nina Mauro. Lastly, sa
kahoy is an OBL in (14a) and (14b).
Just like the presented data of transitive constructions, it can be inferred that the
grammatical case that the arguments take does not change whether the verb predicate is affixed or

8
not. In Tagalog intransitive constructions, the S of an affixed root predicate takes the same case as
the S of an unaffixed root predicate.
This just shows that we can consider root predicates as verbs, even if they lack the
affixation for aspect inflection. This type of verb shows similar behavior with adjectives because it
denotes the eventuality of state, rather than event. As Vendler (1967) defines it, this type of verb
expresses that something does not undergo any change because it does not contain the aspectual
feature of the prototypical verb. Notice that (a) constructions differ from (b), when meaning is
involved. The (a) sentences tend to show an event wherein change happens from one point to
another. There is an element of time involved when an action is done, is being done or will be done.
In contrast, the (b) simply denotes a state wherein there is no change that can be observed. This is
because it has no element of time when it started and when it will end.

5.2. Kinaray-a

5.2.1. Negatives
The analysis for Kinaray-a will be based on negation. In order to prove the ‘verbality’ of
some root forms, Zubiri (2011) states that negatives are always “categorically restrained” -
meaning they only mark forms that belong to a specific natural class. According to him, negatives
always mark an inflected form.
Let us first present the negatives three negatives in Kinaray-a in reference to Zorc (1977):
bəkən, wara and indi. Bəkən is a negative for predicates, wara for existence or possession, and indi
for prohibition. However, I would like to further expand his description of the three negatives.
Bəkən is used to negate predicates, specifically non-verbs as in:

(15) Bəkən tana ti manggaranon3

NEG 3ABS.SG ERG rich
‘He is not rich.’

(16) Bəkən gwapo si Sandro4

NEG handsome ABS Sandro
‘Sandro is not handsome.’

3
Zorc, D. P. (1977). The Bisayan Dialects of the Philippines: Subgrouping and Reconstruction.
Canberra, Australia: Pacific Linguistics.
4
From this point onwards, sentence samples with no footnotes means that they are constructed by
the native speaker of Kinaray-a.
9
 (17) Bəkən m-.(k)a-pyerde si Leni*
NEG PRSP.ABS-.(k)a-lose ABS Leni
‘Leni will not lose.’

Examples (15) and (16) show that taga-Wharton ‘someone from Wharton University’
(noun) and gwapo ‘good looking’ are negated by bəkən respectively. While maglagyo in (17), clearly
a verb with a prospective affix m-, is considered ungrammatical. Sometimes bəkən can be
interchanged with bəkət which can be from bəkən ti, of which ti is an indefinite ergative or genitive
marker related to ug in Cebuano. For example:

(18) Bəkət taga-Wharton si Mar Roxas

NEG from-Wharton ABS Mar Roxas
‘Mar Roxas is not from Wharton (University).’

(19) Bəkət gwapo si Sandro

NEG handsome ABS Sandro
‘Sandro is not handsome.’

Wara, on the other hand, negates existence or possession when followed by a noun. If
followed by a verb, they are usually in the perfective and imperfective form. Hence:

(20) Wara ti tawo sa balay.5

NEG ERG person OBL home
‘No one is at home.’

(21) Wara na gin-sakyan ang taxi6

NEG 1ERG.SG TR.PFV-ride ABS taxi
‘He/she did not ride in the taxi.’

5
A translation from Hiligaynon to Kinaray-a from Zorc, D. P. (1977). The Bisayan Dialects of the
Philippines: Subgrouping and Reconstruction. Canberra, Australia: Pacific Linguistics.
6
A translation from Hiligaynon to Kinaray-a from Zorc, D. P. (1977). The Bisayan Dialects of the
Philippines: Subgrouping and Reconstruction. Canberra, Australia: Pacific Linguistics.
10
 (22) ...wara n-.(p)ag<a>-representa sa personal nga panan-awan7
NEG INTR-.(p)ag<IPFV>-represent OBL personal LKR opinion
‘...does not reprensent (the author’s) personal opinion.’

(23) Wara gin<a>sunod kang KathNiel ang rules sa eleksyon

NEG TR<IPFV>follow ERG KathNiel ABS rules of election
‘KathNiel does not follow the rules of (the) election.’

(24) Wara m-.(k)a-daug si Marcos*

NEG PRSP.INTR-.(k)a-win ABS Marcos
‘Marcos will not win.’

So now let us introduce the correct negator for (19) and (24). According to Zorc (1977), indi
is used for prohibition, usually a negative for verbs in prospective form. In Tagalog, it can be
directly translated as huwag. But usually, indi negates verbs that are in the prospective form. Thus
the grammatical statements should be:

(25) Indi m-.(p)ag-panaw!8

NEG PRSP.INTR-.(p)ag-go
‘Don’t go.’

(26) Indi m-.(k)a-buka ang bote9

NEG PRSP.INTR-.(k)a-break ABS bottle
‘The bottle will not break.’

Also, there is another negative not mentioned in Zorc (1977). Like indi, nugay is also a
prohibitor and a verbal negator. Indi and nugay can be interchangeable except that nugay usually
implies that the action is done regular or by habit which is why one is prohibited to do so for a
better purpose and the verb stays in root form.

7
From the Pahagup ni Pangga section of Asenjo, L. (n.d.). Balay Sugidanun. Retrieved from
https://balaysugidanun.com
8
A translation from Aklanon to Kinaray-a from Zorc, D. P. (1977). The Bisayan Dialects of the
Philippines: Subgrouping and Reconstruction. Canberra, Australia: Pacific Linguistics.
9
Geremia-Lachica, M. C. (2014, February 24). Ang Solusyon - DUNGUG KINARAY-A INC. Retrieved
from http://dungugkinaray-a.com/maria-milagros-c-geremia-lachica1/ang-solusyon

11
 (27a) Nugay (ikaw) pati sa mga n-.(p)aka-post sa Internet
NEG.IMP 2ABS.SG NEUT.believe OBL PL PFV.INTR-.(p)aka-post OBL Internet
‘Don’t keep believing posts that you see in the Internet!’

(27b) Indi (ikaw) m-.(p)ag-pati sa mga n-.(p)aka-post sa Internet

NEG.IMP 2ABS.SG PRSP.INTR-.(p)ag-believe OBL PL PFV.INTR-.(p)aka-post OBL Internet
‘Don’t believe posts that you see in the Internet!’

(28a) Nugay (ikaw) sunod sa mga pabebe kay Sandro sa Twitter

NEG.IMP 2ABS.SG NEUT.follow OBL PL pabebe OBL Sandro OBL Twitter
‘Don’t keep following those pabebe to Sandro on Twitter.’

(28b) Indi (ikaw) m-.(p)ag-sunod sa mga pabebe kay Sandro sa Twitter

NEG.IMP 2ABS.SG PRSP.INTR-.(p)ag-follow OBL PL pabebe OBL Sandro OBL Twitter
‘Don’t follow those pabebe to Sandro on Twitter.’

It can be observed that nugay compared to its indi counterpart in examples (27b) and (28b),
the verbs in indi constructions are affixed while in nugay they are not. In comparison to Vendler’s
theory, indi negates semelfactive or momentary events in a sense that it tells you what not to do at a
certain point in time while nugay negates a state that describes a change that has ended but has not
yet finished.

5.2.2. Root predicates

Why the need to discuss the negators? But of course, due to the scarce sources in Kinaray-a,
it is necessary to describe each negative in the language. With that, it would be easier to prove
which root forms are considered verbs in Kinaray-a.
For example, pyerde, by itself can be a noun ‘loss’ or verb ‘to lose’. Consider the following
statement ‘Pyerde gid si Manny’10. In this statement, is pyerde a noun or a verb? The correct answer
is… it’s verb! The reasons is that the negation of the sentence is ‘Wara napyerde si Manny’.
Remember that wara negates a verb and the verb must always be inflected. Hence, proves that
pyerde is a verb root predicate in this statement, a reduced form of its full verb counterpart ginraha
‘cooked’. The process of de-affixation is explained in a later portion of the discussion.
Observe the following examples taken from Twitter:

10
Tweet from Dominique Teruel last May 3, 2015. Retrieved from
https://twitter.com/DJpapaDOMO
12
 (29a) Daug si Roxas11
Ø-win ABS Roxas
‘Roxas has won.’

(29b) Wara n-.(p)ag-daug si Roxas

NEG PFV.INTR-.(p)ag-win ABS Roxas
‘Roxas has not won.’

(30a) Hidlaw ko sa migo ko 12

Ø-miss ABS OBL boyfriend ERG
‘I miss my boyfriend.’

(30b) Wara ako n-.(k)a-hidlaw sa migo ko

NEG ABS 1ABS.SG PFV.INTR-.(k)a-miss OBL boyfriend ERG
‘I do not miss my boyfriend.’

Intransitive examples (29a) and (30a) exhibit the same arguments as the inflected verbs in
(29b) and (30b). Both (29a) and (29b) have an S si and in (30a) and (30b) have ko (the post-clitic
ABS of ako) as the most affected entity. Moreover, the negator wara forces the root form to
transform to its inflected form because again, as Zubiri (2011) states, the negator always negates an
inflected verb.
Let us look into transitives this time:

(31a) Hambal ko (nga) (in)di ako m-.(k)a-ima13

Ø-say 1ERG.SG LKR NEG ABS PRSP.INTR-.(k)a-jealous
‘I said I will not get jealous.’

(32b) Wara ko g<in>hambal (nga) (in)di ako m-.(k)a-ima

NEG 1ERG.SG ga<IPFV.TRANS>say LKR NEG ABS PRSP.INTR-.(k)a-jealous
‘I did not say that I will not get jealous.’

11
Tweet from Richelle del Rosario last May 24, 2016. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/chellefifi
12
Tweet from Lorelyn Gonzales last May 24, 2016. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/Lolelayn_
13
Tweet from Thei Aliste last May 26, 2016 https://twitter.com/chamae_alst
13
 (33a) Bati ko (nga) kamo run14
Ø-hear 1ERG.SG LKR together PRT (already)
‘I heard that you are already together.’

(33b) Wara ko n-.(k)a-bati-an (nga) kamo run

NEG 1ERG.SG PFV.INTR-.(k)a-hear-an LKR together PRT (already)
‘I did not hear that you are already together.’

(34a) Kita ko gid (nga) n-.(p)ag-kiss gid tanda15

Ø-see 1ERG.SG PRT (really) LKR PFV.INTR-.(p)ag-kiss PRT (really) 3ABS.PL
‘I really so that they kissed.’

(34b) Wara ko n-.(k)a-kita (nga) n-.(p)ag-kiss tanda

NEG 1ERG.SG PFV.INTR-.(k)a-see LKR PFV.INTR-.(p)ag-kiss 3ABS.PL
‘I did not see that they kissed.’

(35a) Plangga ta gid (i)kaw16

Ø-love 1ERG.SG PRT (really) 2ABS.SG
‘I really love you.’

(35b) Wara ta ikaw g<in>plangga

NEG 1ERG.SG 2ABS.SG ga<IPFV.TRANS>love
‘I did not love you.’

Examples (31)-(35) are transitive constructions that contain P, A and O. In the (32)-(33)
have ko as A and nga-phrase as O. The last two examples (34) and (35) have ta as A and ikaw for O.
Again, all constructions having the same argument structure but differ in the affixed and unaffixed
verbs. The affixed verbs in the transitive constructions were also brought about by the verbal
negator wara.

14
A translation from Hiligaynon to Kinaray-a from Shey’s Majadu twitter account last March 12,
2016. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/Sheeeeeeyy
15
Tweet from Anang last May 12, 2016. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/MileyCYRENEs
16
Tweet from Angel Yap Lotilla last Mar 23, 2016. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/angelYapL
14
 5.2.3. “Pseudo Verbs”
According to Zorc (1977), dapat ‘need’, kinahanglan ‘need’, pwede ‘can be’, gusto ‘like’, kilala
‘know (a person)’, man-an ‘know (something)’ and kamaan ‘know (how to do something)’ are
pseudo verbs. In this portion of the discussion, we will prove that these ‘pseudo verbs’ are actually
verb roots rather than just being “false verbs”. Consider the following:

(36a) Dapat sund-on gid ninyo ria17

Ø-should follow-TR.NEUT PRT 2ERG.PL MED.ABS
‘You should really follow that.’

(36b) Indi niyo dapat pag-sund-on ria

NEG 2ERG.PL Ø-should pag-follow-TR MED ABS
‘ You shouldn’t really follow that.’

(37a) Kinahanglan ko ang sangka tarum nga binangon18

Ø-need 1ERG.SG ABS one sharp LKR bolo
‘I need a sharp bolo.’

(37b) Indi ko kinahanglan ang sangka tarum nga binangon

NEG 1ERG.S Ø-need ABS one sharp LKR bolo
‘I do not need a sharp bolo.’

(38a) Gusto nana m-.(k)a-man-an kon diin n-.(p)ag-agto ang mga

Ø-want 3ERG.SG PRSP-.(p)a-know-TR CONJ QW (where) PFV-.(p)ag-go ABS PL
bohes19
taxes
‘He/she wants to know where the taxes went.’

(38b) Indi nana gusto m-.(k)a-man-an kon diin n-.(p)ag-agto ang

NEG 3ERG.SG Ø-want PRSP-.(p)a-know-TR CONJ QW (where) PFV-.(p)ag-go ABS

17
Geremia-lachica, M. C. (n.d.). Ang Bunyag - DUNGUG KINARAY-A INC. Retrieved May 24, 2016,
from http://www.dungugkinaray-a.com/ang-bunyag.html
18
Geremia-Lachica, M. C. (n.d.). Binangon - DUNGUG KINARAY-A INC. Retrieved May 24, 2016, from
http://www.dungugkinaray-a.com/binalaybay.html
19
Amante, M. S. (1999, April 22). Ang Pagbihag ni Tumaka Bulalakaw kay Maria Katsila - DUNGUG
KINARAY-A INC. Retrieved from http://www.dungugkinaray-a.com/ang-pagbihag-ni-tumaka-
bulalakaw-kay-maria-katsila.html
15
 mga bohes
PL taxes
‘He/she does not want to know where the taxes went.’

(39a) Kilala nanda ang katarum (kang binangon)20

Ø-know 3ERG.PL ABS sharpness ERG bolo
‘They know the sharpness of (the) bolo.’

(39b) Indi nanda kilala ang katarum (kang binangon)

NEG 3ERG.PL Ø-know ABS sharpness ERG bolo
‘They do not know the sharpness of (the) bolo.’

(40a) Man-an ko nga may iba kaw rən

Ø-know 1ERG.SG LKR EXIST another 2ABS.SG PRT (already)
‘I know that you already have another.’

(41b) Indi ko man-an nga may iba kaw rən

NEG 1ERG.SG Ø-know LKR EXIST another 2ABS.SG PRT (already)
‘I don’t know that you already have another.’

(42a) Kamaan abi ako m-.(p)ag-hambal it Espanol21

Ø-know because 1ABS.SG PRSP.INTR-.(p)ag-cook ERG Spanish
“Because I know how to speak Spanish.”

(42b) Indi abi ako kamaan m-.(p)ag-hambal it Espanol

NEG because 1ABS.SG Ø-know PRSP.INTR-.(p)ag-cook ERG Spanish
“Because I do not know how to speak Spanish.”

20
Geremia-Lachica, M. C. (n.d.). Binangon - DUNGUG KINARAY-A INC. Retrieved May 24, 2016, from
http://www.dungugkinaray-a.com/binalaybay.html
21
Amante, M. S. (1999, April 22). Ang Pagbihag ni Tumaka Bulalakaw kay Maria Katsila - DUNGUG
KINARAY-A INC. Retrieved from http://www.dungugkinaray-a.com/ang-pagbihag-ni-tumaka-
bulalakaw-kay-maria-katsila.html
16
 (43a) Sanay ako nga wara ikaw
Ø-used.to 1ABS.SG OBL NEG 2ABS.SG
‘I am used to you not being (here).’

(43b) Indi ako sanay nga wara ikaw

NEG 1ABS.SG Ø-used.to OBL NEG 2ABS.SG
‘I am not used to you not being (here).’

(44a) Pwede gali ma-stepler (ang kurtina)

Ø-can PRT (surprise marker) m(k)a-stapler ABS curtain
‘Oh! The curtain can be stapled.’

(44b) Indi gali pwede ma-stepler (ang kurtina)22

NEG PRT (surprise marker) Ø-can m(k)a-stapler ABS curtain
‘Oh! The curtain cannot be stapled!’

The following are a modified combination of Schachter (1972) and Zorc’s (1977) pseudo
verbs. The list of the “pseudo verbs” (in this case now proven as verbs due to the verbal negator
used) are: dapat, kinahanglan, gusto, kilala, man-an, kamaan, sanay and pwede. As opposed to Zorc’s
claim of pseudo verbs or “fake verbs”, examples (36)-(44) show that they are negated by the verbal
negator indi. Therefore, through negation, these forms are considered verbs and not pseudo verbs.

6. GRAMMATICALIZATION
In the previous section, we presented two arguments which prove why root predicates are
not pseudo-verbs but rather, they are actually verbs. The question now is, if they are part of the
verb paradigm, why don’t all intransitive and transitive affixed verbs have these stative verb forms?
Why are some constructions with root predicates acceptable to the speakers, while some forms are
not?
Constructions are permitted or restricted by a continuing process called
grammaticalization. This is defined by Hopper and Traugott (2003) as, one, a reflection of the study
of language change. The first accounts for the questions as to how some forms acquiring or
developing context-based grammatical functions, as the language changes. And two, as the language

22
Geremia-Lachica, M. C. (n.d.). Kang Mapatay si Mr. dela Cruz - DUNGUG KINARAY-A INC.
Retrieved May 24, 2016, from http://www.dungugkinaray-a.com/kang-mapatay-si-mr-dela-
cruz.html

17
changes through time, some particular items undergo steps to become items which are more
grammatical.
We acknowledge two possible reasons for the grammaticalization of verb root predicates.
The first is by the frequent use of the speakers. Expressions undergo “routinization” or
“idiomatization” and when the complexity of the forms is reduced to simplified ones, a process of
“signal simplicity” happens (Hoppers and Traugott, 2003, p. 72). The implication of this is that the
same thought is expressed whether the form is old or new. The latter is by choice of the speakers.
The native speakers choose a more appropriate form basing on a context. Sometimes, a root form is
preferred as more appropriate, because it denotes a state. Sometimes, an inflected form is preferred
as more appropriate, because it denotes an activity, or a change of state.
For example, in a chess game between two Tagalog speakers, one might hear a construction
such as:

(45a) ∅-Kain ka diyan.

∅-eat 2ABS.SG there
‘You are in a position wherein you will be eaten by something.’

(45b) Kakain<in> ka diyan.

<INTR>IPFV~eat 2ABS.SG there
‘Something will eat you there.’

(45c) M.(k)aka-kain ka diyan.

<INTR>IPFV~eat 2ABS.SG there
‘You will be eaten there by something.’

Notice that the root predicate kain in (45a) can be reduced from both constructions (45b)
and (45c). However, the difference between the two full forms lies on the deliberateness of the
change of state. In (45b), the expected delivery of the action is more intended than the delivery of
action in (45c). In the context of a game, the sentence creating a more stative meaning is chosen.
Therefore, the root predicate kain in (45a) is more frequently used.
In Kinaray-a however, from 71 poems and 11 short stories, root predicates only appear in
imperative constructions. This can be because grammaticalization, as in Tagalog, has not yet
covered a wide majority Kinaray-a verbs. The only proven scope were the eight mentioned in 5.2.3
under the “pseudo verbs” section. With the Philippines ranked tenth by country with the most
twitter users (Montecillo, 2012), Twitter was used as a platform for sentential data for examples in
5.2.1. This is in line with the hypothesis that the younger generation, of which were aged 18-44

18
comprised 49% of the twitter users in the Philippines (Labucay, 2011). Note that the boom of
Twitter in the country was in 2012, this means that the 49% can increase dramatically. Basically,
grammaticalization in Kinaray-a might still be on a much earlier state than Tagalog. That is why
natives that allow deaffixation of inflected verbs are relatively young.
Other constructions in which grammaticalization can be observed are as follows. Look at
the “feel verb” in (46a) and (46b), and “pseudo verb” in (47a) and (47b).

(46a) ∅-Mahal kita

∅-love 12ABS.SG
‘You are in a state of being loved by me.’

(46b) M<in>a-mahal kita.

<TR>IPFV~love 12ABS.SG
‘I am loving you.’

(47a) ∅-Bawal iyan.

∅-prohibit DIST.ABS
‘That is in a state of prohibition.’

(47b) I-p<in>agba-bawal iyan.

<INTR>-pag-IPFV~prohibit DIST.ABS
‘That is being prohibited.’

A native speaker is more inclined to use the constructions (46a) and (47a) than (46b) and
(47b). This is because of a more stative denotation of mahal and bawal. Minamahal and
ipinagbabawal, on the other hand, tend to denote an activity. Furthermore, conversations can prove
that the root forms are more frequently used and preferred than the inflected forms.
However, there is more to these forms, so long as the meaning is concerned. (46a) and (47a)
implies that there is a state of being loved and a state of being prohibited, respectively. On the
contrary, (46b) expresses the actual event of loving, and (47b) expresses the actual event of
prohibiting. Both (46b) and (47b) denote an ongoing actions which are time-based, while (46a) and
(47a) denote states which are not bound by time.
The same applies to Kinaray-a where pseudo verbs and feel verbs are already
grammaticalized. For example:

19
 (48a) Hidlaw ako kay nanay
Ø-miss 1ABS.SG OBL mother
‘I miss mother.’

(48b) N-.(k)a-hidlaw ako kay nanay

PFV-INTR-.(k)a-miss 1ABS.SG OBL mother
‘I missed mother.’

(49a) Sanay ako nga g<in>abaya-an

Ø-used.to 1ABS.SG OBL ga<PRSP.TR>leave-an
‘I am used to being left (alone).’

(49b) N-.(k)a-sanay ako nga g<in>abaya-an

PFV.INTR-.(k)a-used.to 1ABS.SG OBL ga<PRSP.TR>leave-an
‘I am used to being left (alone).’

As we can see, the verb root predicate is of nearer in state than its inflected form. However,
unlike Tagalog, grammaticalization has not quite kicked in. Native speakers would prefer to say
(48b) and (49b) over (48a) and (49a).
The question is, does grammaticalization come from human creativity, or from routinization
in daily usage? We have come to consider both instances of human creativity and frequency
through constant use as reasons for grammaticalization. All roots undergo a continuing process of
grammaticalization. In Tagalog, forms which appear as ungrammatical, may seem ungrammatical
but this is because these forms have not undergone grammaticalization. As for Kinaray-a, it can be
assumed that through time, reduced root forms may be preferred over full root verbs like in
Tagalog. However, the amount of time needed cannot be estimated and is beyond the limits of this
paper.
What kind of process do root verbs undergo to become grammaticalized then? In his book
Degrammaticalization, Norde (2009) introduced a process called debonding wherein a bound
morpheme undergoes a composite change and becomes a free morpheme. This process features
four distinct factors, namely (1) severance (decrease in bondedness), (2) flexibilization (increase in
syntactic freedom), (3) scope expansion (ie. from dynamic to stative scope), and (4)
recategorialization (change from one lexical category to another). However, as we can notice from
Tagalog root verbs, they only display two of these features which are severance and scope
expansion.

20
 With this, we propose a process that is more specific and considered suitable to Tagalog
root verbs, and that is subtractive affixation. The full forms undergo debonding by subtractive
affixation. Subtractive affixation is a process wherein affixes are subtracted from their full affixed
transitive and intransitive form. Once affixes are detached, root forms are produced. In this process,
the scope of eventuality changes from the dynamicity of affixed verbs to the stativity of these root
verbs. Interestingly, unlike other items that have undergone debonding, there happens no shift in
lexical category in Tagalog root predicates, because they stay as verbs. This just proves that root
predicates are reduced forms of affixed transitive and intransitive verbs through subtractive
affixation. Root forms then become appropriate and acceptable. With this, the root forms are
considered to be grammaticalized.

7. CONCLUSION
Root predicates were treated as pseudo-verbs in previous analyses. In Tagalog, root
predicates are seen as adjectives which behave like verbs that are not inflected for aspect. In
Kinaray-a, root predicates are seen as pre-clausal modal particles that occur with actors and
complements. However, we reject this claim, because it says that root predicates are comparable
with verbs only, when in fact they are actually verbs. We have proven that root predicates must be
treated as verbs because (1) arguments receive the same grammatical case whether the full form,
affixed verb or the root form is used in Tagalog, and (2) root predicates take verbal negators when
negated in Kinaray-a.
Root predicates, in the context of discourse, display adjective-like characteristics because
they express eventuality of state where no change occurs. They are different from prototypical
verbs because the latter expresses change with their aspectual feature. Imagine a line with two
extremes: one end which leads us to a classification of “verb” and the other which leads us to a
classification of “adjective”. We can say that the root predicates fall in between, although they tend
to incline more on the side of the “verb”. In Vendler’s terms, root predicates are semantically states
that denote that the activity has come to a stop but has not yet finished. However, morphologically,
they become adjectives when intensified. Syntactically, some root forms in Tagalog and Kinaray-a
have an argument structure such that of verbs having S in intransitive constructions and A and O in
transitive constructions. Moreover, some Kinaray-a root predicates receive the verbal negator wara
or indi.
Despite its place in the verb paradigm, we have seen that not all affixed transitive and
intransitive verbs have stative root counterparts. This is because they may not have been
grammaticalized yet. Root predicates in Tagalog come from affixed verbs that were transformed
into their unaffixed forms by subtractive affixation. Through time, acceptance and frequent usage of
the terms has made them a natural occurrence in the language. Of which, the grammaticalization

21
process has semantically expanded the definition of the word through debonding. According to
Norde (2009), scope expansion (a form of debonding) is where the previously strictly lexical verb
roots are able to be inflected as adjectives (i.e. intensification) which is why Schachter and Otanes
has classified them as ‘pseudo verbs’. Grammaticalization, as a process of accepting and generating
what is grammatical, has yielded different outcomes in Tagalog. Tagalog has embraced these root
predicates that denote state, with the existence of them in numerous Tagalog utterances.
Furthermore, given the complexities of root predicates in Philippine languages, further
study on root predicates should be done especially with the use of adverbial clitics. Also,
pragmatically marked constructions such as questions, cleft constructions, and relative clauses
must be analyzed as well.

22
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

A agent or source of action

ABS absolutive
AGENT semantic agent
BEN beneficiary/recipient
CAUS causative
CONJ conjunction
COMPR comparative
ERG ergative
GEN genitive
INTR intransitive affix
INTSV intensive
IMP imperative
IPFV imperfective
LKR linker
LOC locative
MODE mode
NEG negator
NEUT neutral tense-aspect
NOM nominalization
O patient or most affected entity
OBL oblique
PFV perfective
PL plural
POSS possessive
PR personal
PROX proximal
PRSP prospective
PRT particle
QW question word
RED reduplication
RPFV recent perfective
S only argument of an intransitive construction
STAT stative verb
TR transitive

23
Ø zero-marked
1 1st person
12 dual person
2 2nd person
3 3rd person
= cliticization
- morpheme boundary
. morpheme with several metalanguage elements
<> infixation

8. REFERENCES
Amante, M. S. (1999, April 22). Ang Pagbihag ni Tumaka Bulalakaw kay Maria Katsila - DUNGUG
KINARAY-A INC. Retrieved from
http://www.dungugkinaray-a.com/ang-pagbihag-ni-tumaka-bulalakaw-kay-maria-kats
la.html
Asenjo, L. (n.d.). Balay Sugidanun. Retrieved from
https://balaysugidanun.com
Cena, R. (2006). Sa Simula, Ang Salitang Ugat. University of the Philippines, Quezon City,
Philippines.
Constantino, E. (1994). Ang sintaks at semantics ng mga berbal na salitang-ugat sa wikang Filipino.
Delos Santos, A. C. (2003). The Rise of Kinaray-a. Iloilo City, Philippines: University of San
Agustin.
Foley, W. A. (1998). Symmetrical voice systems and precategoriality in Philippine languages.
Unpublished.
Geremia-lachica, M. C. (n.d.). Ang Bunyag - DUNGUG KINARAY-A INC. Retrieved May 24, 2016, from
http://www.dungugkinaray-a.com/ang-bunyag.html
Geremia-Lachica, M. C. (n.d.). Binangon - DUNGUG KINARAY-A INC. Retrieved May 24, 2016, from
http://www.dungugkinaray-a.com/binalaybay.html
Geremia-Lachica, M. C. (n.d.). Kang Mapatay si Mr. dela Cruz - DUNGUG KINARAY-A INC.
Retrieved May 24, 2016, from
http://www.dungugkinaray-a.com/kang-mapatay-si-mr-dela-cruz.html
Geremia-Lachica, M. C. (2014, February 24). Ang Solusyon - DUNGUG KINARAY-A INC. Retrieved
from http://dungugkinaray-a.com/maria-milagros-c-geremia-lachica1/ang-solusyon
Himmelmann, N. (2008). Lexical categories and voice in Tagalog. Voice and grammatical
relations in Austronesian languages, 247-293. Retrieved from: uni-muenster.de
Hopper, P. J., & Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.

24
Labucay, I. D. (2011, August). Internet Use in the Philippines. Paper presented at World Association
for Public Opinion, Asmterdam, Netherlands. Retrieved from http://wapor.org/wp-
content/uploads/2011/09/Labucay.pdf
Montecillo, P. (2012, August 9). Philippines has 9.5M Twitter users, ranks 10th. The Daily Inquirer.
Retrieved from http://technology.inquirer.net/15189/philippines-has-9-5m-twitter-
users-ranks-10th
McFarland, C. D. (1989). A frequency count of Pilipino. Linguistic Society of the Philippines.
McFarland, C. D. (2008). A corpus-based dictionary of Filipino. 10th Philippine Linguistics Congress,
Manila, 10-12 December 2008.
Nolasco, R. (2003). What Philippine ergativity really means. Unpublished.
Nolasco, R. (2011). Grammar notes on the national language. Unpublished.
Norde, M. 2009. Degrammaticalization. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
Schachter, P., Otanes, F. (1972). Tagalog reference grammar. LA: University of California Press.
Vendler, Z. (1967). Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Zorc, D. P. (1977). The Bisayan dialects of the Philippines: Subgrouping and reconstruction.
Canberra, Australia: Pacific Linguistics.

25