Guest Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 THREAD HIJACK!!! How dare you? Far be it from me to debate one of the Philippine dialects with a Philippina, but...The one thing I clearly and distinctly remember learning was the ma tense altering prefix (though I know there were more, naga, naka...???). Ma was for future tense. I don't remember pa being a prefix option. The first phrase I learned was diin ka makadto, and that's the way every missionary said it (including the Philippino ones). So if you're right, we all sounded like a bunch of cavemen.Hilagaynon is not my native tongue. But, it's Visayan so I know it enough to get myself understood. I'm more proficient in Boholano (also under Visayan umbrella).On the prefix - yes, ma is future, na is past... but in this case, pa is used to indicate progressive direction... The grammatically correct prefix would be mapakadto - future with progressive direction - but may be shortened to pakadto because progressive direction indicates from now to future already.So yes, you will hear makadto used interchangeably with pakadto so you didn't sound like cavemen but pakadto is the more appropriate usage because of the indication of direction from here to there in addition to the tense.And of course, I'm only nitpicking because I'm thread hijacking... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 Hilagaynon is not my native tongue. But, it's Visayan so I know it enough to get myself understood. I'm more proficient in Boholano (also under Visayan umbrella).On the prefix - yes, ma is future, na is past... but in this case, pa is used to indicate progressive direction... The grammatically correct prefix would be mapakadto - future with progressive direction - but may be shortened to pakadto because progressive direction indicates from now to future already.So yes, you will hear makadto used interchangeably with pakadto so you didn't sound like cavemen but pakadto is the more appropriate usage because of the indication of direction from here to there in addition to the tense.And of course, I'm only nitpicking because I'm thread hijacking... I see. Cool.I'm only responding because I embrace thread hijacking. On the other hand, I doubt this conversation has much interest to anyone else. Sorry everybody else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted January 27, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 The other reason is I agree with Vort. I don't feel like adding my experiences in a "Gay Appreciation" thread. Just like I wouldn't add them to a "Pornographer Appreciation" thread or a "Medical Marijuana Appreciation" thread..all legal btw. When you group "Gay's" I have negative feelings because by in large their goals as a political arm are destructive to the values I hold dear. Believe it or not I know and have known many Homosexuals who go quietly about their lives and feel the same way I do about the "group".Well, and there's one other Mormon idiosyncrasy to this: For what I presume are primarily cultural reasons, we like to cover up our weaknesses--both individually and institutionally. I mean, I go to a porn addiction recovery group every Thursday night. About five members of my ward go, with some regularity, to the exact same group. One of them is a Church Service Missionary and facilitator for the group. In Elders' Quorum last month, there was a lesson on pornography. I, of course, didn't say a thing. Neither did any of the other guys who I know are struggling with porn addiction. Even the missionary/facilitator remained silent. (At one point it was kind of funny, because the instructor delicately suggested that "you know, maybe even one or two people in this room have struggled with this issue at some point", and I'm sitting there thinking "Yeah, me, and him, and him, and him, and him!")It would be utterly bizarre, in most Mormon contexts, to set up an "alcoholics appreciation thread", or a "porn addicts appreciation thread", or an "overeaters appreciation thread", or (apologies to Vort, Anatess, and Quin) a "pedophile appreciation thread"--our leaders tell us not to pigeonhole people like that, the members of those groups themselves don't want to be publicly identified as such, and the rest of us just don't want to believe that those flaws exist among us. Add a "gay appreciation thread" into the mix, where our secular society generally conflates "gay appreciation" or "gay pride" with celebrating homosexuality--and you're gonna have some Mormon heads exploding.I'm not sure the meltdown in Anatess' original thread was even about gays per se, necessarily. I think maybe it was symptomatic of a broader cultural conflict within Mormonism about how we approach character flaws, and how we categorize those who suffer from them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 I see. Cool.I'm only responding because I embrace thread hijacking. On the other hand, I doubt this conversation has much interest to anyone else. Sorry everybody else.Waaaaaaa! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 Do you think that Hoosierguy calls us bigots and haters?Not sure why you brought him up. He's not gay as far as I know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.