Tagalog pronoun profile (WALS Chs 39, 40, 44–48)

@cite{wals-2013} @cite{himmelmann-2005-tagalog}

Pronoun paradigm (Himmelmann 2005 Table 12.2, p. 358)

                ANG-FORM      NG-FORM       SA-FORM
1.SG            akó           ko            akin
2.SG            ikáw / ka     mo            iyo / iyó
3.SG            siyá          niyá          kaniyá
1.DU.IN         kitá / katá   nitá          kanitá
1.PL.IN         tayo          natin         atin
1.PL.EX         kamí          namin         amin
2.PL            kayó          ninyó         inyó
3.PL            silá          nilá          kanilá

@cite{himmelmann-2005-tagalog} labels the columns SPEC / POSS(GEN) / LOC(DAT) (p. 358; the sa-form of personal pronouns and personal names is glossed DAT rather than LOC because of distributional differences). @cite{kroeger-1991-thesis} (p. 14, ex. 12) uses the cleaner labels NOMINATIVE / GENITIVE / DATIVE, explicitly rejecting the older "topic"/"complement" terminology.

Clusivity (system-level)

Tagalog instantiates Cysouw's minimal-augmented type (@cite{cysouw-2009}): the inclusive splits into a minimal 1du.in form (1+2 only, "we two") and an augmented tayo (1+2+others — speaker + addressee + additional referents, of any number; @cite{schachter-otanes-1972} p. 89 glosses it as "you (singular) and I (and others)" / "you (plural) and I"); the exclusive kami remains a single category. This is a finer typological cut than WALS Ch 39's binary incl/excl coding can express, which is why the WALS-shaped inclusiveExclusive field below underdetermines the paradigm.

The kitá / katá cell warrants care. @cite{schachter-otanes-1972} Chart 7 (p. 88) tabulates the 1du.in NOM as kata (with nita/kanita GEN/DAT) — and adds a separate portmanteau kita (p. 89) that combines 1sg.GEN with 2sg.NOM (occurring "in place of the non-occurring sequences \*ko ka and \*ka ko", e.g. in 'I [verb] you' constructions). @cite{himmelmann-2005-tagalog}'s Table 12.2 lists kitá / katá together as the 1.DU.IN ang-form, conflating these. S&O (p. 89) further note that "the dual non-plural pronouns are obsolescent in educated Manila Tagalog, and many speakers do not use them at all, using the dual plural tayo/natin/atin for 'you (singular) and I' as well as 'you (plural) and I'." The minimal-augmented classification therefore reflects the historical/textbook system; modern colloquial Manila Tagalog effectively collapses to plain inclExcl.

def Fragments.Tagalog.pronounProfile : Typology.PronounProfile

Tagalog (Austronesian, Philippine). Inclusive/exclusive in independent pronouns (kami vs tayo); no person marking on verbs (WALS); no gender distinctions (siya is gender-neutral); multiple politeness distinctions (ikaw/kayo/po); existential construction for indefinite reference; intensifier (mismo) differentiated from reflexive (sarili); no adpositions per WALS Ch 48.

Equations

• One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

def Fragments.Tagalog.pronounShapeProfile : Typology.PronounShapeProfile

Tagalog pronoun phonological shape (WALS Chs 136–137): no M-T; no /m/ in 1SG (ako); no N-M; /m/ present in 2SG (mo).

Equations

• One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

def Fragments.Tagalog.clusivitySystem : Features.Clusivity.System

Tagalog clusivity system per @cite{cysouw-2009}: minimal-augmented, with the historical 1-dual-inclusive kata (@cite{schachter-otanes-1972} p. 88) alongside the augmented-inclusive tayo and the exclusive kami. Modern Manila Tagalog has largely lost the dual; this field reflects the textbook paradigm, not colloquial usage. Refines the binary WALS Ch 39 value pronounProfile.inclusiveExclusive = some .inclusiveExclusive.

Equations

• Fragments.Tagalog.clusivitySystem = Features.Clusivity.System.minimalAugmented

structure Fragments.Tagalog.PronounRow : Type

A row of the Tagalog pronoun paradigm: a Cysouw 2009 person/number category and its three case forms.

• category : Features.Person.Category
• angForm : String

  ang-form (SPEC / NOM).

• ngForm : String

  ng-form (POSS / GEN).

• saForm : String

  sa-form (LOC / DAT).

@[implicit_reducible]

instance Fragments.Tagalog.instReprPronounRow : Repr PronounRow

Equations

• Fragments.Tagalog.instReprPronounRow = { reprPrec := Fragments.Tagalog.instReprPronounRow.repr }

def Fragments.Tagalog.instReprPronounRow.repr : PronounRow → ℕ → Std.Format

Equations

• One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

def Fragments.Tagalog.pronounParadigm : List PronounRow

The Tagalog independent-pronoun paradigm per @cite{schachter-otanes-1972} Chart 7 (p. 88), mapped onto Cysouw 2009 categories.

The 1.DU.IN.NOM cell is kata per S&O Chart 7; the kitá form @cite{himmelmann-2005-tagalog} Table 12.2 lists alongside katá is in S&O p. 89 a separate portmanteau combining 1sg.GEN with 2sg.NOM (in 'I [verb] you' clauses), not a 1du.in pronoun.

Equations

• One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

theorem Fragments.Tagalog.pronounParadigm_categories_match : List.map (fun (x : PronounRow) => x.category) pronounParadigm = Features.Person.Category.all

The categories enumerated by the paradigm are exactly Cysouw's canonical ordering (singulars first, then groups). Subsumes a length = Category.all.length claim.

theorem Fragments.Tagalog.clusivity_system_consistent_with_paradigm : (List.map (fun (x : PronounRow) => x.category) pronounParadigm).contains Features.Person.Category.minIncl = clusivitySystem.hasMinimalAugmented

Cross-substrate consistency: the paradigm includes a minimal-inclusive row iff the language commits to the minimal-augmented clusivity system. The forward direction encodes the minimal-augmented type's definition (a separate "we two" form for speaker + addressee only); the converse here holds because Tagalog has both.

theorem Fragments.Tagalog.wals_clusivity_consistent : pronounProfile.inclusiveExclusive = some (Typology.InclusiveExclusive.fromClusivity clusivitySystem)

The WALS Ch 39 image of Tagalog's Cysouw clusivity system agrees with the WALS-side commitment in pronounProfile.inclusiveExclusive. This catches drift if either commitment changes without the other.