Talk:ga-

Etymology
Just wondering where you got the etymology of "gaya". --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 22:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Also note, don't use the term "blend" for ancient derivations. Blend is mainly referring to recent new derivation of words. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 22:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Mar vin kaiser what would the term be then? the other terms in the glossary doesn't seem to all have a template, but blend has a template that links to some categories. It's a bit difficult to determine too how old some of these terms are, at least if we just have literature only from recent centuries to work with. Mlgc1998 (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Mar vin kaiser The words like ganiyan, ganito, ganoon, and etc. all function the same when you replace them with "gaya ". The phenomena where they merge matches the same with other likewise terms that were just merged particles and such, like sayo, naman, paano, etc. Some of which today are either considered fully as words but some still aren't fully accepted or as cemented yet at times as full words yet. The behavior of how many of these terms were made in Tagalog seems to be common with many other examples, likely from frequent use of commonly used phrases where they would eventually merge like that when people got used to it. I put that gaya etymology hours ago, when the synonyms in ganiyan reminded me of it. Didn't you put those there? Anyways, I was gonna put the etymology at first only for the second definition, but the examples for the first definition in this ga- page match that idea too and most all the other "ga-..." words. Looking at the other remaining "ga-" terms that might not match seem to be something to do with smallness like gasino shows two ideas there. well, that's something to put into deep thinking about again. Mlgc1998 (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As for "gaya", I admit, it kinda makes sense, but it's a pretty ancient derivation, similar to how "sino" is possibly from "si" and "ano", no one remembers the original words, and only etymologists through careful study would derive it. Unlike the more recent contractions like "sayo". For these ancient derivations, it's better that we have scholarly sources saying it, rather than us imposing our theories when we're not experts in the field. I actually have some of my personal theories of the origins of some words, but I don't put them here, at least not just yet. Anyway, I'll edit the entries, I think the analogy with "gaya" is useful to preserve in the "ga-" entry, see how I edit it.
 * As for not using "blend", if you observe other entries, they just use an addition, not even a compound, sometimes more less old derivations, they use contraction. The word "univerbation" is also nice to explore. I used it in . --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, I just found scholarly sources that postulate the "gaya" etymology. My bad. It's from Jose Panganiban. I'm gonna edit it back after work. Sorry about that. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 23:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Mar vin kaiser Hmm interesting. Where are these sources exactly found? Are there a lot of research like this already? The ones I remember before are just like those books by Potet. If there are findings where they plainly say them, it might be easier to be listing their findings then than having to think about what I come across. Ok, univerbation. Thanks! Ok, so if it's like a blend but for expressions, it's a univerbation. Alright gotcha! Mlgc1998 (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)