Learn Hardcore Filipino: Huwag tayong bumili ngayon; wala pang pera si Liza. - Let's not buy today; Liza doesn't have money yet.

Command/suggestion: Huwag tayong bumili ngayon. = Let’s not buy today.
Statement (not a command): Hindi tayo bibili ngayon. = We will not buy today. Use hindi to negate statements; use huwag to tell/urge someone not to do something.

Why is it bumili (which I learned as “bought”) instead of bibili or bumibili after huwag?

With -um- verbs, the form used after huwag is the base/infinitive form, which looks the same as the completed (past) form.

Completed (past): bumili = bought
Incomplete/ongoing: bumibili = is/are buying
Contemplated/future: bibili = will buy
Prohibitive: Huwag ... bumili = don’t buy So you say: Huwag tayong bumili, not ✗Huwag tayong bibili. For a future-statement negation, use hindi: Hindi tayo bibili.

What does the -ng in tayong do? Could I say Huwag tayo bumili instead?

The -ng in tayong is the linker (-ng), which smoothly connects tayo to the following verb phrase (bumili). It’s very common in exhortations:

Huwag tayong bumili. (very natural)
Huwag tayo bumili. (also heard in conversation) Both are acceptable; the version with -ng often sounds smoother or more formal.

What’s the difference between tayo and kami here?

tayo = we (inclusive: speaker + listener). Huwag tayong bumili invites the listener to join in “not buying.”
kami = we (exclusive: speaker + someone else, not the listener). To talk about your group (excluding the listener) as a statement, you’d say: Hindi na lang kami bibili ngayon. Using Huwag kaming bumili sounds like “Don’t let us buy,” which is a different idea.

Why is it wala pang pera and not just walang pera?

walang pera = has no money (a plain negation of possession)
wala pang pera = has no money yet (suggests that money is expected later) Here, pa means “yet/still,” adding the idea of not yet.

Why does pa turn into pang in wala pang pera?

That’s pa + the linker -ng before a following noun:

pa
- -ng
  - pera → pa-ng → pang pera (written as pang attached to the word before it: wala pang pera). Note: This is different from the prefix pang- meaning “for (use),” as in pang-biyahe. Here it’s just pa + -ng.

Why use wala and not hindi to say someone doesn’t have money?

Use the existential pair:

Affirmative possession/existence: may/meron (e.g., May pera si Liza.)
Negative possession/existence: wala (e.g., Walang pera si Liza. / Wala pang pera si Liza.) You don’t negate may with hindi. ✗Hindi pa siya may pera is ungrammatical. Say Wala pa siyang pera instead.

Can I replace si Liza with a pronoun? How do I say “She still doesn’t have money”?

Yes:

Wala pa siyang pera. Here siya takes the linker -ng (siyang) before the noun pera in this pattern. Don’t say ✗Wala pa siya pera.

Why is it si Liza and not ni Liza or kay Liza?

si marks a named person as the topic/pivot: Wala pang pera si Liza.
ni is the genitive marker (possessor or actor in object-focus): pera ni Liza; Binili ni Liza.
kay is the oblique/dative marker used with sa (to/for/at): para kay Liza, kay Liza. So in this sentence, si is correct.

What’s the difference between bumili and bilhin? Could I say Huwag tayong bilhin?

bumili = actor-focus “to buy” (focus on the buyer). Use this when there’s no specific object, or when the subject is the actor: Huwag tayong bumili.
bilhin = object/patient-focus “to buy (something).” Use this when you mention the specific thing being bought. The agent becomes genitive:
- Huwag nating bilhin iyan. = Let’s not buy that.
- Note the switch from tayong to nating (genitive form of “we”). ✗Huwag tayong bilhin is ungrammatical.

Why is it Huwag nating bilhin (with -ng) and not just Huwag natin bilhin?

Both occur, but the linked form nating (natin + linker -g/-ng) before a verb is very common and smooth:

Huwag nating kalimutan..., Huwag nating bilhin... You’ll also hear Huwag natin bilhin... in speech; nating is generally preferred in writing.

Can I move or omit ngayon?

Yes. Time words are flexible:

Ngayon, huwag tayong bumili; wala pang pera si Liza.
Huwag tayong bumili ngayon; wala pang pera si Liza.
You can omit ngayon if the time is understood from context.

Is the semicolon natural here? Could I use “because” instead?

Yes, the semicolon is fine. You can also connect the clauses with a causal linker:

More formal: Huwag tayong bumili ngayon dahil wala pang pera si Liza.
Conversational: Huwag tayong bumili ngayon kasi wala pang pera si Liza.

What’s the nuance difference between pa and na in this context?

pa = still/yet: Wala pa siyang pera. (She doesn’t have money yet.)
na = already/anymore/no longer (with wala): Wala na siyang pera. (She has no more money; it’s gone.) So: wala pang pera (not yet any money) vs wala nang pera (no more money left).

Is spelling Wag acceptable for Huwag?

In texting/informal writing, you’ll often see Wag. Standard spelling is Huwag, which you should use in formal writing or learning materials.