Istruktura sa Pinulongang Binisaya

Maayong adlaw kaninyo mga higala!
 
Tugoti ako ninyo sa pagpaambit niining mahinungdanong hisgotanan bahin sa pinulongang Binisaya.
 
Kung atong subayon o utingkayon ang kasaysayan sa pinulongang Binisaya, tingali wala pa'y natala nga eksaktong panahon o lugar kung diin nagsugod ang paggamit niining maong pinulongan. Wala ni isa kanato ang makasugilon kung kinsa ang mga tawong unang migamit sa maong pinulongan o kinsa ang nagtudlo kanila sa paggamit niini.
 
Sa akong kabahin, isip usa ka bisayang dako nga nahimugso sa matambok nga yuta sa Davao del Sur, sayon lamang kaayo subayon ang kasaysayan kung ngano Binisaya man ang among pinulongan, bisan tuod taga Mindanao kami. Sa akong pagtuon, niadtong panahon nga ang nasud Pilipinas nahisakop pa sa rehemeng Amerikano hangtod na sa pagkamugna sa gobyernong gitawag ug Commonwealth, gidasig sa mga Amerikano lakip na ni Pangulong Manuel L. Quezon, pinaagi sa Land Settlement Program, ang mga katawhan sa Cebu o Sugbu ug uban pang bahin sa Luzon ug Visayas nga molangyaw ngadto sa lain-laing lugar sa Mindanao. Niadtong panahona, mga nitibo sama sa B'laan, Mandaya, Kaolo, Bagobo, mga igsoon natong Muslim, ug uban pa ang namuyo sa maong halapad nga yuta. Kay lagi libre man ang pagbiyahe sa mga buot molangyaw, aduna pa'y gigahin nga puhonan alang sa pagpatukod ug mga balay, pagpalit ug yuta, ug kapital sa pagpanguma, niliboan ang nadasig sa pagpuyo sa Mindanao. Ug lakip sa maong hut-ong ang akong mga apohan nga gikan pa sa yuta sa Bohol, Argao, ug Moalboal, Cebu. Mao'y hinungdan nga mikuyanap ang pinulongang Binisaya sa yuta sa Mindanao ug ngano usa ako ka Bisayang Dako.
 
Apan dili kana mao ang hisgotanan nga buot kong ipasibaw. Tinuod nga lisud subayon ang kasaysayan sa pinulongang Binisaya. Apan ang pangutana, nganong wala pa ma'y namugna nga estruktura ang maong pinulongan sa kadugay na niini? Kung sa pinulongang Ingles aduna'y gitawag ug 'grammar' ug sa Tagalog gitawag ug 'balarila', unsa ma'y tawag niini sa pinulongang Binisaya? Aduna ba? Kung ilawom sa 'grammar' o 'balarila' aduna'y pulong nga 'noun' o 'panggalan' sa Tagalog, unsa man kini sa Binisaya? Ang ubang kabahin sa gitawag ug 'parts of speech' sa Ingles sama sa verb, adjective, pronoun, adverb, preposition, conjunction ug uban pa nga aduna'y hubad sa Tagalog nga pandiwa, panag-uri, panghalip, pang-abay, ug uban pa, unsa ma'y hubad niini sa pinulongang Binisaya? Aduna ba? 
 
Kung aduna ma'y namugna nga estruktura sa pinulongang Binisaya, ug kung kinsa man ang nagmugna o nagpasiugda niini, dawata ang akong kinasingkasing nga pagdayeg sa inyong kakugi ug kaalam. Hinaut nga inyo na kining ipakaylap sa mas labing madaling panahon. Ug kung ugaling wala pa'y namugna nga estruktura sa pinulongang Binisaya, hinaut sugdan na kini aron usab maitudlo sa mga Bisayang Dagko sama kanako.
 
Daghang salamat ug ang kalinaw sa kanunay maanaa kaninyo.
 
Sherwin M. Cesar
Padada, Davao del Sur
 
 

Comments

"State verb" refers to the

"State verb" refers to the "act of being," as we know from our Metaphysics. It is the "Be-ing", which is ontologically a progressive act of existence, such as the "BE-ING" of God. And so it is located in the present point in the TIMELINE. Thus, "state verb" is in the present point in the TIMELINE. (In this case, however, it has no reference to SPEECH TIME, or time of utterance.)  It follows, then, that it takes the form of the verb which we call present tense. May be, there was a failure to see what is the location of "state verb" in the TIMELINE. And, consequently, there was a failure to identify the tense of "state verb." 
 
Now, all verbs refer to events that happen IN TIME. It is a universal FACT, because we human beings exist IN TIME. (In fact, Immanuel Kant asserts that TIME is an innate category of the nature of the human being; meaning, the concept of time is a part of our very nature. It is there a priori.) Thus, the events we create also happen IN TIME. And so, these events could either be located in the PAST point, or PRESENT point, or FUTURE point in the TIMELINE. Since all verbs refer to events that happen IN TIME, then all verbs refer to a location in the TIMELINE. And because of this, all verbs take the form of either PAST, PRESENT, or FUTURE tense.  "State verb," if it is to be considered without reference to SPEECH TIME, takes the form of present tense, corresponding to the PRESENT point in the TIMELINE, as shown above. This shows that if all verbs refer to events that happen IN TIME, then all verbs have TENSE. But, of course, it is also a universal fact that there is no uniform way of expressing tense-forms in different languages in the world. However, it is even said that Chinese language does not use tense. If this is so, then I just donot know how the Chinese people show location of events in the TIMELINE. I am tempted to think that may be they donot have events in their lives, so much so that their language does not need to have indicators of events in the TIMELINE, and so there is no need for tense. But, I doubt if there ever is a human language that is (totally) VERBLESS, and so NO TIMELINE indicators, and so NO TENSE indicators.
 
What about Visayan-Cebuano verbs? Our language belongs to the agglutinative languages, because affixes are principally the natural means of changing, or bringing nuances to, the meaning of words. And these include verb words. It is in these affixes where we can find indicators of the location of an event in the TIMELINE; and thus, consequently, indicators of tenses. It is a fact; thus, it cannot be denied.
 
The problem today, with regards to our language, is that, as far as I have known, the "AFFIXES"  have not recieved, since 1947, a thorough investigation in the philosophical level, i.e., using analytic philosophy or linguistic philosophy, semantics and pragmatics. I might be making much assumption here if I say that, perhaps, universities in the Visayas and some parts of Mindanao, offering MAs and/or PhDs in linguistics, or philosophy of language, seem not to give much weight on the investigation of the Visayan-Cebuano language compared to the study of the English, and/or other foreign languages. Here, in my place, there seems to be little interest in the investigation of the nature of our own language, especially the AFFIXES, at the highest level, i.e., university level. And it is true even among group of writers in the Visayan-Cebuano language. Literary writing seems to be what pre-occupies the writers in this language. But, if I am mistaken in my assumption, and there is really a lot of studies going on our language in the university level, I wonder the results of the studies seem not to be made public through publications in book form, so much so that non-academic people, but lovers of our language, may be able to avail the findings concerning our language. I have not seen in bookstores book-length studies on Visayan-Cebuano language. Interest seems to be little, if not at all.
 
Salamat