with any of the following:
2) Si Robert Pattinson ang maganda. (The beautiful one is Robert Pattinson.)
3) Ang maganda si Taylor Lautner. (Taylor Lautner is the beautiful one.)
The exclamation “Birfers!” is a speech act naming a set, namely, the set of people who think that Obama is not a citizen of the United States. (This is a substantial subset of ‘people who are seriously detached from reality’.) Following Max Black, I submit that a set is just ‘things named all at once.’ ‘Birfers!’ thus establishes a set by naming all at once all people who are Birfers at the time of the utterance.
“Robert Pattinson ang maganda” and “Ang maganda si Taylor Lautner” show a peculiarity about Tagalog: one can turn an adjective or verb into a noun denoting a particular, discrete entity by pre-posing ‘ang‘ to it. The sentences do not translate as “The beautiful is Robert Pattinson;’ and ‘Taylor Lautner is beautiful’; they translate as “The beautiful one is Robert Pattinson” and “Taylor Lautner is the beautiful one”. The ‘ang‘ in ‘ang maganda‘ signals that some entity has already been identified or will readily be identified (when it is pre-posed to to the topic) or that this definite entity and not some other is identical with the topic (when it is pre-posed to the predicate).
One sees, for example, a person in a group who stands out because of his beauty and you are confident he will stand out this way for your audience. You know that Robert Pattinson is identical with this person, but you aren’t sure that the people you are talking with know this, so you say “The beautiful one is Robert Pattinson.” “Si Robert Pattinson ang maganda.” You are assuming an identity.
You see someone in a group whom you know to be Taylor Lautner; you are overwhelmed by his beauty, but you are not totally sure that everyone else is (Dr. Forsberg for example is constantly casting aspersions on your taste in guys); there are other arguably beautiful men there…Brad Pitt, for example, or Matt Damon or Jude Law or Ashton Kutchner… so you say “Taylor Lautner is the beautiful one”. “Ang maganda si Taylor Lautner”. Not Brad Pitt, not Matt Damon, not Jude Law, not Ashton Kutchner, but Taylor Lautner — just to set the record straight. So you are asserting, stating, not just assuming an identity. This is the predicate, after all.
That ang either assumes or asserts an identity suggests the possibility of interpreting ‘maganda‘ as ‘some (currently unidentified) beautiful one.’ Taking out the ‘ang‘ takes out the identity, the ‘this specific one’, the ‘this one and not that other’. What one is left with then is some (currently) not yet specified beautiful one; there exists some member of the set of beautiful entities, but we do not yet know which one, nor do we have enough of a handle on the entity to say it’s this one and not that other.
Of course, without the ‘ang‘, ‘maganda‘ cannot be the topic of the sentence. (The ‘*’ indicates a sentence that would strike competent speakers as a word salad.)
* Si Robert Pattinson maganda.
So in the canonical Tagalog sentence, the ang-less maganda could only be at the left of the sentence — on the left side of the scales, so to speak:
Maganda si Robert Pattinson.
This would then translate (on an extremely literal level) as:
Some beautiful one = Robert Pattinson.
Some member of the set of beautiful entities = Robert Pattinson.
And this would be the easiest, cleanest way to cash out the intuition that the canonical Tagalog sentence has a PREDICATE = TOPIC structure. Coming up with the cleanest way of doing this is the motivation for suggesting that we look at ‘maganda‘ as ‘ang maganda‘ stripped of the assumed or asserted specific identity signaled by the ‘ang‘. (And understanding the arguments for the claim that Tagalog does not have a subject is the motivation for trying to cash out the PREDICATE = TOPIC intuition.)
If this way of cashing out the intuition is correct, then, ‘maganda‘ does not name a set in 2), as I suggested in a previous post. Instead, it names some member of the set of beautiful entities that is unidentified at the moment of the utterance of the word and will remain unidentified until we get to ‘si Robert Pattinson.’ In this way, it differs from the ejaculation ‘Birfers!’ because, unlike ‘Birfers!’, it names not a set but some (unidentified) member of a set.
Above, I say ‘suggests the possibility’ rather than ‘shows’ because of course this interpretation of ‘maganda‘ has not been demonstrated. To show that ‘maganda‘ in 2) names at the time of utterance some (currently unidentified) beautiful entity, I would have to show that stripping away the ‘ang‘ in ‘ang maganda‘ does not radically alter the function of the word ‘maganda.’ This of course I have not shown. The constituents of ‘ang maganda‘ might not be that atomistic, partes extra partes.
So far all I have is ‘I have the intuition that the canonical Tagalog sentence is an equality (and Naylor and Schachter also have this intuition, so nyah nyah nyah), and interpreting ‘maganda‘ in the way I have just suggested would be the simplest way to describe this equality should the intuition turn out to be correct.