(continuation) On your question about actor and object focuses: Subject/Actor: Chris Verb: “Sumipa” (infinitive/imperative - actor-focused); “Sipain” (infinite/imperative – object-focused) Object: Ulo (head); ulo ko (my head); aking ulo (my head) Actor-focused sentences: (Notice that “SI Chris” is used) “SUMIPA sa ulo ko si Chris” = “SUMIPA si Chris sa ulo ko” = Chris kicked me in the head (Either one would be the correct subject-focused form of sentence 1 in your question) “Si Chris ang SUMIPA sa ulo ko/sa aking ulo.” = Chris was the one who kicked my head. “Ang SUMIPA sa ulo ko/sa aking ulo ay si Chris.” = The one who kicked my head was Chris. Object-focused sentences: (Notice that “NI Chris” is used) “SINIPA ako sa ulo ni Chris” = Chris kicked me in the head - Your sentence 2, exactly. (This may also be, “SINIPA ni Chris ako sa ulo”, but we’d less likely say it that way) “SINIPA ni Chris ang ulo ko/ang aking ulo” = “SINIPA ang ulo ko/ang aking ulo ni Chris” = Chris kicked my head. “Ang ulo ko/Ang aking ulo ay SINIPA ni Chris” = My head was kicked by Chris.

Your 2 sentences mean different things because of the switch in their actors and objects. As “torusan” commented, “Sumipa ako sa ulo ni Chris”, does convey the meaning that “I kicked Chris in the head”. But it’s a little more than that, something like, “I kicked at the head of Chris”. To just mean “I kicked Chris in the head”, it would be, “Sinipa ko sa ulo si Chris” or “Si Chris ay sinipa ko sa ulo”. Your first sentence would need an antecedent event for it to be understood correctly. The event could be, for example, that a group of you kicked Chris and you are explicitly saying that you applied yours at his head. Another possibility could be that you definitely intended to kick Chris, but could not decide on which part of his body to do it. Then you are declaring that finally you did it on his head. Your sentence would therefore need settings such as those before its meaning will become clear.

Hi! Adam. Native speaker here. This made me confused too. I don't remember teaching us in school / reading this in the book(maybe because I'm not paying attention) but I'll tell you what I have observed. The first sentence is grammatically correct but it is rhetorically wrong. "Sumipa ako sa ulo ni Chris" translated in English would be: I kicked (something) on Chris' head. Normally we didn't kick something on anybody's head unless there's a ball on the top of his head or anything. You got my point. But assume there is a ball on his head, that sentence will be correct. It will be more correct if we emphasize the ball. "Sumipa ako ng bola sa ulo ni Chris." The second sentence is both grammatically and rhetorically correct. It says in English: "Chris kicked me in the head". Both -in and -um are used to make a verb in past tense. Sumipa = kicked Sinipa = was kicked But, when do you use it? You use -in- affix if the subject in the Filipino sentence is the RECEIVER of the action. Halimbawa (Example): Sinipa si Chris. = Chris was kicked. Paliwanag (Explanation): Chris is the subject and he recieved the action, so we use -in-. If you have complement to place, you can add it before/after the subject but there are some rules too. Halimbawa: Sinipa si Chris ng kanyang kapatid sa ulo. = Chris was kicked on head by his sibling. Sinipa sa ulo nang kanyang kapatid si Chris. nang kanyang kapatid = by his sibling sa ulo = on head. You use -um- affix if the subject is the DOER of the action. Halimbawa: Sumipa si Chris. = Chris kicked (something). Paliwanag: Chris(subject) is the one who do the kicking. If you have complement to add, it can be placed before/after the subject but again there are some rules too. Halimbawa: Sumipa si Chris ng bola sa sahig. = Chris kicked a ball on the floor. Sumipa ng bola sa sahig si Chris ng bola = a ball sa sahig = on the floor Goodluck! Please correct my grammar if its wrong.

Ok, actor focused verbs are these: sumipa sinipa nanipa tumakbo nagtakbuhan umupo nagluto kumain uminom nagtangka Object-focused verbs are like these: sinipa tinakbuhan tinakbo inupuan linuto pinag-luto nilutuan kinain kinainan ininom ininuman pinag-tangkaan tinangkaan With regards to sipa, now I just found out that sinipa can be both object- focused and doer-focused. Sumipa is rarely used. Sinipa is more comonly used. There are really no conscious rules. We use the language according to what sounds right. There are just those which sound awkward to us and those which sound comfortable and acceptable to us. We don't learn those in school. It just comes naturally, I don't know. That's the reason there are not enough books and resources which completely and comprehensively explain tagalog grammar. We don't get it by reading or studying hard, it's just ...that we "feel" the correctness or awkwardness of the language. ANd it's really hard to make a book regarding a complete set of tagalog grammar rules. It would be very tedious to do. We just know what's correct and what's not, and that's enough for us. And we ourselves are amazed how foreigners learn our language because we know it's really hard to learn tagalog if one did not grow up here. I think the best way to learn Tagalog is to listen to it a lot and converse with other tagalog speakers a lot.

Sumipa ako sa ulo ni Chris. --- I kicked the head of Chris. Sinipa ako sa ulo ni Chris.- I was kicked on the head by Chris. Both sentences are correct. The first sentence though would not be used by native Tagalog speaker. See how I would express it. English to Tagalog. I kicked Chris' head. --- Sinipa ko (I kicked) ang ulo ni Chris (Chris' head). Chris kicked my head. --- Sinipa ni Chris (Chris kicked) ang ulo ko (my head).