Close
 


Question: Why is kita not mentioned in Tagalog tutorials?

« Back
123»
Message Menu
Author Photo by: emorjon2
Aug 08 2020, 5:26pm CST ~ 3 years, 8 mos ago. 
Question: Why is kita not mentioned in Tagalog tutorials?
 
One of the first words I learned in tagalog was Mahal kita (I love you).
When I checked the deeper meaning of these words, I learned that Mahal was actually an adjective rather than a verb (meaning "Expensive"/"Beloved") and kita meaning specifically "You and I". So Mahal kita would literally mean "You and I are beloved".
 
I found this word kita very useful as it shortens alot of sentences (instead of saying ako mo you can say kita), but when I look at any tutorials online on Tagalog, specifically personal pronouns, they never mention it at all. The closest thing they mention is the 1st person plural inclusive is "tayo".
 
I know the answer won't help me learn tagalog any faster, but I am really curious on this one. Is kita a word in Tagalog that is dying out?
Reply
 
Message Menu
Author Photo Bituingmaykinang
Aug 08 2020, 9:20pm CST ~ 3 years, 8 mos ago. 
Mahal can mean two things. Expensive and love(verb).
 
Kita does not really mean you and I. It is often used when you did something/will do something/are doing something to someone (basically "I {verb} you".). Kita is more of a replacement of ko ikaw rather than ako mo. Sometimes you'll hear native speakers say "pupuntahan ko ikaw", though that's kind of considered a "baby speech". (Note: pupuntahan ako mo does not make sense)
 
Sinampal kita (I slapped you, not "you and I are slapped").
 
Tinadyakan kita (I kicked you, not "you and I are kicked").
 
Sinakal kita. I choked you.
 
Palalayain kita. I will free you.
 
Pupuntahan kita. I will visit you
 
Kailan kita pwedeng bisitahin? When can I visit you?
 
Saan kita titignan? Where will I meet (see) you?
 
Nakita kita kahapon. I saw you yesterday.
 
Tatawagan kita mamaya. I will call you later.
 
Hindi kita kilala. I don't know you.
 
So yeah, the proper translation of Mahal kita is I love you.
 
No, kita is not dying out. You probably are not encountering it YET. It's pretty much part of daily speech.
 
Search "Di Ako Bakla" by Michael V and it has the phrase "sasampalin kita"
 
This page has lots of examples of how kita is used: www.tagalog.com/word s/kita.php
 
Edit: what is actually in disuse is "kata". It's now replaced by tayo, which I think comes from languages further north.
 
Edit 2: you might actually be referring to the old use of kita. It still can be heard in areas like Nueva Ecija, but in standard Tagalog, *kita* now means "I {verb} you". This is the context of "Mahal Kita".
 
Message Menu
Author Photo akosikoneho
Aug 09 2020, 8:19am CST ~ 3 years, 8 mos ago. 
> Mahal kita
 
Mahal kita is either parsed as "You are the thing I love, or I love you"
 
There is a bit of a debate on the base root forms that are commonly called nouns (since it lacks the verbal -in affix to make it an explicit verbal) not that it really matters. Kita doesn't mean you and I in most modern Tagalog dialects (along with the dialectal kata). Some southern dialects use it in place of tayo (which is a kampampangan loan word), but this is not the case for the majority of Tagalog speakers you will meet. @bituingmaykinaing is right, it is simply a replacement for ko ikaw (which can be found in older Tagalog, and some poems). Cebuano bisaya also replaced ko ikaw (except for in poems and literature) with ta ka which is kita (reduced form) + ka (ikaw, reduced form)。
 
Message Menu
Author Photo Bituingmaykinang
Aug 09 2020, 11:39am CST ~ 3 years, 8 mos ago. 
TIL that "ko ikaw" is actually more old fashioned. I'm not a poem person, so yeah. It seems that nowadays though using "ko ikaw" would be considered "child speak" than "old fashioned". What is considered old-fahsioned "ikaw ay aking {verb}"
 
I wonder when the shift from ko ikaw to kita happened.
 
Message Menu
Author Photo AMBoy Badge: SupporterBadge: Serious SupporterBadge: VIP Supporter
Aug 09 2020, 1:10pm CST ~ 3 years, 8 mos ago. 
@jkos please review above and modify the page here to reflect, ko ikaw, instead of ko ka.
 
www.tagalog.com/word s/kita.php
 
Message Menu
Author Photo jkos Badge: AdminBadge: SupporterBadge: Serious SupporterBadge: VIP Supporter
Aug 10 2020, 10:41am CST ~ 3 years, 8 mos ago. 
jkos please review above and modify the page here to reflect, ko ikaw, instead of ko ka. www.tagalog.com/word s/kita.php
 
@AMBoy
I don't think that would be appropriate. Modern beginners are going to want to say "ko ka" and that would be incorrect - they need to use "kita".
 
Wrong: "Sasampalin ko ka" - This is what a beginner would try to use, that is wrong.
 
With current modern educational materials, they would NOT be prone to use:
"Sasampalin ko ikaw"...
 
Correct: "Sasampalin kita."
 
There might be some historical background to "ko ikaw" but changing the "kita" definition to "ko ka" for a modern reader doesn't make much sense to me...
 
Message Menu
Author Photo Bituingmaykinang
Aug 10 2020, 12:11pm CST ~ 3 years, 8 mos ago. 
Kita as "ko ka" is wrong. Even today, native speakers would use "ko ikaw" if they don't feel like using "kita". Ko ikaw is still acceptable but considered a bit child speak
 
Message Menu
Author Photo jkos Badge: AdminBadge: SupporterBadge: Serious SupporterBadge: VIP Supporter
Aug 10 2020, 12:34pm CST ~ 3 years, 8 mos ago. 
@Bituingmaykinang
>> Kita as "ko ka" is wrong.
 
Absolutely...
 
But "kita" is typically used in places where I would be tempted to use "ko ka" if I didn't know better.
 
Tagalog Reference Grammar, for example, also explains "kita" as a replacement for the (incorrect) "ko ka":
 
Tagalog Reference Grammar, pg 81:
"Finally, if both the ng pronoun and the ang pronoun are monosyllabic - ko and ka are the only potential combination that fits the description - a special composite pronoun kita, which has the meaning 'I (actor)-you (goal)', is used: e.g., Binigyan kita ng salapi."
 
Tagalog Reference Grammar, pg 99:
"As was noted in 2.13, there is a special composite pronoun kita/kitah that combines the meanings of a first-person-singular ng form and a second-person-singular ang form. Kita thus occurs in place of the non-occurring sequences "ko ka" and "ka ko".
 
Learning Tagalog makes a similar statement:
"When-
the speaker is the non-POD doer (p. 52) of the action (ko), and
the listener is the POD (p. 30) and the object of the action (ka),
the combination ko–ka (I as doer–you as object) is replaced by kita."
 
Message Menu
Author Photo akosikoneho
Aug 10 2020, 7:53pm CST ~ 3 years, 8 mos ago. 
@Bituingmaykinang
 
Mm. Tayo is a kampampangan loan. I'm not sure how Southern Tagalogs do it but I believe that they are prone to using kita in place of tayo... Ko ikaw is still found in Cebuano but it is replaced with "ta ka" literally kita (tayo) + ikaw (ka) in colloquial speech. I too wonder what happened.
 
@Learning Tagalog makes a similar statement:
"When-
the speaker is the non-POD doer (p. 52) of the action (ko), and
the listener is the POD (p. 30) and the object of the action (ka),
the combination ko–ka (I as doer–you as object) is replaced by kita."
 
It is still ko ikaw despite the DeVos's insistance on this ko ka non sense.
 
Message Menu
Author Photo jkos Badge: AdminBadge: SupporterBadge: Serious SupporterBadge: VIP Supporter
Aug 10 2020, 10:18pm CST ~ 3 years, 8 mos ago. 
>> It is still ko ikaw despite the DeVos's insistance on this ko ka non sense.
 
Hmm...Tagalog Reference Grammar agrees too, though, so it’s less easy to dismiss for me.
 
LOGICALLY it makes sense...
Sasampalin ko siya.
Sasampalin ka niya.
Sasampalin ko ka. (which is of course wrong, where “ko ka” is what should be replaced with “kita”).
 
Of course logic may simply not apply...if something was in common usage, that’s the way it is...but I’ve never seen “ko ikaw” used before either...do you have any sources online for it? I have to admit I avoid old Tagalog texts...
 
Message Menu
Author Photo Bituingmaykinang
Aug 10 2020, 10:24pm CST ~ 3 years, 8 mos ago. 
It doesn't make sense to me that "ko ka" is replaced by kita given that "ko ka" is grammatically wrong. It's like replacing something that does not exist. Whereas, ko ikaw is actually used and has the same meaning as kita.
 
Pupuntahan ko ikaw bukas. Sounds a bit choppy compared to kita, but it's not really wrong. Ko ikaw is actually used in speech, but not as prominent as kita as ko ikaw kinda sounds "child speak".
 
Message Menu
Author Photo Bituingmaykinang
Aug 10 2020, 10:34pm CST ~ 3 years, 8 mos ago. 
It is also pointed here that kita being a replacement of ko ikaw
 
forum.wordreference. com/threads/kita.207 6791/
 
Message Menu
Author Photo jkos Badge: AdminBadge: SupporterBadge: Serious SupporterBadge: VIP Supporter
Aug 11 2020, 5:48am CST ~ 3 years, 8 mos ago. 
Whereas, ko ikaw is actually used and has the same meaning as kita.
 
@Bituingmaykinang
Hmm....Ok. I looked up my spoken corpus and also didn’t find any instances of “ko ikaw” in this format (there were 7 instances of the “ko ikaw” string but none of them were in a format where “kita” would be a valid replacement). This is in a million word spoken corpus...so, roughly 110 hours of spoken word if you take out all the dead air, and no “ko ikaw”. A lot of stuff doesn’t exist in the corpus, of course, but it looks pretty rare. I’ve never heard it, or at least haven’t noticed it...
 
I just hate the “take my word for it” rationale.
 
I’m not sure I take the linked forum as a definitive source, either, but I do have a lot of trust in Tagalog Reference Grammar.
 
Can you explain why, in these sentence structures:
Sasampalin ka nila.
Sasampalin ka niya.
Sasampalin ka ni Jennelyn.
 
...we use “ka” as the receiver of the “slap”...but if you say:
“Sasampalin kita.” ...why would you NOT say that “kita” is replacing “ko ka”? Why would the “ka” suddenly become “ikaw”?
 
The answer might be “kita” replaces both... “ko ka” in some cases, “ko ikaw” in others.
 
Message Menu
Author Photo akosikoneho
Aug 11 2020, 5:49am CST ~ 3 years, 8 mos ago. 
@Jkos
 
Ko ikaw appears in the corpus tool (although some of these are ko + ikaw ang xyz phrases)
 
Ko ikaw also appears here in this
 
phonne20.blogspot.co m/2010/05/mahal-ko-i kaw.html
 
> Sa aking pakiramdam ay mas "sincere" pag may nagsabi sa ito ng mga salitang "MAHAL KO IKAW"o"MAHAL KITA"..Parehas man ang ibig kahulugan nito sa salitang "I LOVE YOU" sa ingles,ay iba pa rin ang aking nararamdaman sa tuwing naririnig ko ang mga salitang "MAHAL KO IKAW"o"MAHAL KITA".Sa madaling salita sa aking pakiramdam ay mas matimbang ang kahulugan ng mga salitang iyon kontra sa ingles na salitang "I LOVE YOU".
 
The author appears to be from Pangansinan.
 
This blog here
 
mrbolero.com/tagalog -pick-up-lines-mahal -ko-ikaw-lang/
 
Has mahal ko ikaw lang
 
Also
 
YouTube
CELESTE LEGASPI - Gaano Ko Ikaw Kamahal
 
I just can't see it being ko ka, I've asked around for more references.
 
Message Menu
Author Photo akosikoneho
Aug 11 2020, 6:03am CST ~ 3 years, 8 mos ago. 
Interestingly enough
 
en.wiktionary.org/wi ki/kita
 
Wiki suggests it as "ko ikaw" but there are no citations (most recent update on the page precludes this because it was done ages ago) so we know no vandalism.
 
Message Menu
Author Photo jkos Badge: AdminBadge: SupporterBadge: Serious SupporterBadge: VIP Supporter
Aug 11 2020, 6:08am CST ~ 3 years, 8 mos ago. 
Ko ikaw appears in the corpus tool (although some of these are ko + ikaw ang xyz phrases)
 
@akosikoneho
They’re all like that, where “kita” is not a valid replacement in those constructs, as far as I can see...
 
It seems to me there may be constructs where “ko ikaw” could work, maybe in these types of equivalency constructs like “Mahal kita” / “Mahal ko ikaw”. My love = you.
 
But, it seems undeniable that “kita” replaces the wrong “ka ko” AT TIMES, at least.
 
Can you give a good counter argument for my “sampalin” example? Why would “ka” be used with all the other pronouns, but you wouldn’t then also say “kita” is replacing “ka” / “ko ka”?
 
Sasampalin ka nila.
Sasampalin ka niya.
Sasampalin ka ni Jennelyn.
 
There’s no reason in mind that I can think of, why in this case, for example, we should be telling people “kita” is replacing “ko ikaw”...
 
123»
Post a Reply»




« Back to Main Page
Views: 1,008