Learn Hardcore Filipino: Malapit na kaming umalis, pero si Tatay ay nanonood pa ng balita. - We are about to leave, but Father is still watching the news.

Malapit na kaming umalis, pero si Tatay ay nanonood pa ng balita.

We are about to leave, but Father is still watching the news.

Breakdown of Malapit na kaming umalis, pero si Tatay ay nanonood pa ng balita.

Elon.io is an online learning platform

We have an entire course teaching Filipino grammar and vocabulary.

Start learning Filipino now

Questions & Answers about Malapit na kaming umalis, pero si Tatay ay nanonood pa ng balita.

What does “Malapit na” mean here? Is it literally “near,” or does it mean “about to”?

Malapit literally means “near / close (in distance or time)”.

With na, the phrase “Malapit na …” is often used idiomatically to mean “about to / almost” in time.

So in this sentence:

Malapit na kaming umalis ≈ “We are about to leave / We’re leaving very soon.”
Literally: “We are already near (to) leaving.”

The word na adds a sense of “already / now / reaching a point”. Without na, malapit is just a neutral “near/close.”

Why is it “kaming umalis” and not just “kami umalis”?

Kami is the pronoun “we (excluding you)”.

When kami is directly followed by another word that describes or completes it (like a verb, adjective, or noun), Filipino usually attaches the linker -ng to it, forming kaming:

kami
- -ng → kaming

This -ng is called a linker; it connects kami to the verb umalis so that together they form one unit:

kaming umalis = “we who are leaving / we to leave.”

So:

Malapit na kami. = We are near / We’re almost there / It’s almost our turn, etc. (no specific action mentioned)
Malapit na kaming umalis. = We are about to leave. (the action umalis is specified)

Using plain “kami umalis” without the linker is ungrammatical in this structure.

What exactly is “umalis” here? Is it a past tense verb, an infinitive, or something else?

The root is alis (“to leave”). With the um- infix, you get umalis.

In Filipino, verb forms are more about aspect than strict tense, and particles/other words inform the time reference.

Here, umalis is used more like an infinitive / bare verb:

Malapit na kaming umalis.
→ Functionally: “We are about to leave.”
→ Literally: “We are already near to leave.”

The idea of “soon / future” comes from malapit na, not from a special future form of the verb.

Compare:

Umalis kami. = We left. (completed action)
Aalis kami. = We will leave / We’re going to leave. (future/incomplete aspect)
Malapit na kaming umalis. = We are about to leave. (focus on being near the action in time)

Could I also say “Malapit na kami umalis” without the -ng on kaming?

Natural Filipino prefers “Malapit na kaming umalis” with the linker -ng.

“Malapit na kami umalis” sounds off/ungrammatical to native speakers, because kami is being directly modified by umalis without the linker.

Correct variants you might hear:

Malapit na kaming umalis. (most natural for this structure)
Aalis na kami. (simpler; “We’re leaving now / We’re about to leave.”)
Paalis na kami. (also “We’re about to leave / We’re on our way out.”)

So keep kaming umalis together with the -ng linker here.

What’s the difference between “kami” and “tayo”? Why is “kami” used in this sentence?

Both are “we”, but they differ in inclusivity:

kami = we (excluding the listener)
tayo = we (including the listener)

In “Malapit na kaming umalis”, using kami implies:

The speaker and some others are about to leave.
The listener is not included in that group.

If the speaker wanted to say “We (including you) are about to leave,” they would say:

Malapit na tayong umalis.

Why is it “si Tatay” and not just “Tatay” or “ang tatay”?

In Filipino, si is a marker used before personal names or nicknames:

si Maria (Maria)
si John (John)
si Tatay (“Dad” as a person, like a name)

Tatay literally means “father/dad”, but in many families it functions like a name (what you actually call him), so it uses si:

si Tatay ≈ “Dad” (specific person, like “Dad” in English)

Compare:

ang tatay = the father / the dad (generic or descriptive, not used as his “name”)
si Tatay = Dad (the actual person you call Dad)

That’s why the sentence uses si Tatay.

What does the “ay” in “si Tatay ay nanonood pa ng balita” do? Can I leave it out?

ay is a linker used in “inverted” or “topic-comment” sentences, especially in more formal or written Filipino. It loosely corresponds to putting the topic first and then commenting on it:

Si Tatay ay nanonood pa ng balita.
Topic: Si Tatay → Comment: nanonood pa ng balita
= “As for Dad, he is still watching the news.”

A more conversational version would drop ay and use a different word order:

Nanonood pa ng balita si Tatay. (very natural in speech)

So yes, you can leave ay out but you then usually move the verb to the front:

❌ Si Tatay nanonood pa ng balita. (sounds incomplete without ay)
✅ Si Tatay ay nanonood pa ng balita. (formal-ish)
✅ Nanonood pa ng balita si Tatay. (colloquial)

Why is “nanonood” spelled with no-no (double no)? What does this form mean?

The root is nood (“to watch / to view”).

Filipino often forms the progressive / ongoing aspect by:

Adding na- (a form of the actor-focus affix)
Reduplicating the first syllable of the root

For nood:

Basic past actor-focus form: nanood = “watched”
Progressive (in the process of watching): nanonood = “is/are watching”

Pattern:

nood → nanood (completed)
nood → nanonood (ongoing)

So “nanonood” means “is watching / is in the act of watching.” That’s why the sentence translates as “Dad is still watching the news,” not just “Dad watched the news.”

What does “pa” mean in “nanonood pa ng balita”?

Pa usually means “still / yet / anymore (in negatives)”, depending on context.

In “nanonood pa ng balita”:

pa = “still”

So:

Nanonood pa si Tatay ng balita.
= “Dad is still watching the news.”

If you remove pa:

Nanonood si Tatay ng balita.
= “Dad is watching the news.” (no implication about whether he’s been doing it for a while or whether he should have stopped)

With pa, there’s a nuance that he hasn’t stopped yet, which creates the contrast with “we’re about to leave” in the first clause.

How do “na” and “pa” contrast in this sentence?

In Filipino, na and pa often behave like opposites:

na = already / now / anymore (in positives)
pa = still / yet

In the sentence:

Malapit na kaming umalis → We are *already close to leaving (we’re about to leave).*
n anonood pa ng balita → He is *still watching the news.*

This contrast is important:

na suggests progression toward a new state.
pa suggests continuation of the current state.

So the meaning is: We’re already at the point of leaving, but Dad is still in the middle of watching the news.

Why is it “ng balita” and not “ang balita” after nanonood?

In “nanonood pa ng balita,” the structure is:

nanonood (watching)
ng balita (object: news)

Here, ng marks “balita” as the object of the verb “watching.”

If you used ang balita, you’d be making “the news” the subject/topic, which changes the structure:

Nanonood pa ng balita si Tatay.
→ Verb–object–subject order. Very natural.
Si Tatay ay nanonood pa ng balita.
→ Topic (si Tatay) + comment.

Using “ang balita” directly as object after nanonood would be ungrammatical in this pattern:

❌ Nanonood pa ang balita si Tatay. (wrong)

So:

ng balita = news as a thing being watched (object)
ang balita would make the news the grammatical subject, which is not what we want here.

Could I say “Aalis na kami, pero si Tatay ay nanonood pa ng balita” instead? What’s the difference from “Malapit na kaming umalis”?

Yes, that’s a very natural variation:

Aalis na kami, pero si Tatay ay nanonood pa ng balita.
= “We are leaving now / about to leave, but Dad is still watching the news.”

Difference in nuance:

Malapit na kaming umalis
- Literally “We are already near to leaving.”
- Emphasizes being close in time to the action of leaving.
Aalis na kami
- Literally “We will leave now / We’re going to leave now.”
- More direct; often means “We’re leaving now” in everyday speech.

Both can mean that leaving is imminent, but:

Malapit na kaming umalis feels a bit more like “We’re almost at the point of leaving.”
Aalis na kami feels like “We’re starting to leave now / heading out now.”

Can I switch the order in the second clause and say “Nanonood pa si Tatay ng balita”?

Yes, and that’s actually more typical in everyday speech:

Si Tatay ay nanonood pa ng balita. (more formal/written, “ay”-construction)
Nanonood pa si Tatay ng balita. (colloquial, verb-first)

Both mean “Dad is still watching the news.”

The meaning doesn’t change; only the style and emphasis do:

Si Tatay ay … emphasizes Dad as the topic.
Nanonood pa si Tatay … emphasizes the action (watching) first.

Is there any special stress or intonation I should be aware of when saying this sentence?

Typical neutral intonation (in many Tagalog-speaking areas):

Malápit na kamíng umalís,
- Main stress: lá in Malápit, and lís in umalís.
- Slight rise on na or kami; slight fall at the end of umalís (but not final fall yet, because the sentence continues).
péro si Tatáy ay nanonóod pa ng balíta.
- pé in péro is stressed.
- tá in Tatáy.
- In nanonóod, the primary stress is on nó (the “no” before od).
- In balíta, stress is on lí.

There’s often a contrastive intonation:

Slight emphasis on na (we’re already about to leave)
Slight emphasis on pa (but he’s still watching)

This intonation helps highlight the “already” vs “still” contrast between the two clauses.