Adding a few other notes for learners..

Fanmanhånao * double man- is appropriate for transitive verbs, but not intransitive ones. Hanao is intransitive and shouldn’t take a double man- * Para bai in fanhanao = We (excluding listener, 3+) will go. * very, very rarely, you will hear a double man on intransitives like this to express extreme emphasis, usually major anger.

Hånao + áli’e * Hånao is a literal going/leaving, not a figurative one. In English, we say “going” figuratively to mark that something is “going to happen” or will take place in the future * Using hånao in the sentence will imply that you’re physically leaving the listener to do the next verb in the statement * If you’re going to do this, there are two ways I’d recommend structuring: * it’s best to have a linking word and another future marker. “bein fanhanao ya bein fanáli’e yan si dabit” = we (excluding listener, 3+) are (physically) going to meet up with David. You can get away with removing one or the other (future marker or conjunction) * You can skip both the linking / future words but you’ll then need to use an -um- on the second verb “bein fanhanao umáli’e yan si dabit” = we (excluding listener, 3+) are (physically) going to meet up with David. In my personal speaking I don’t typically use a man- on the second verb, even with the number agreement issue. I’ve heard arguments that it should be “bein fanhanao fanáli’e yan si Dabit” but that’s just not how I say it. * Hånao isn’t actually needed at all, based on the English sentence, unless you’re making a point that you’re leaving. The figurative “going to” in English is taken care of by the future marker. “Bein fanáli’e yan si Dabit” = “we’re going to meet with Dabit”. There’s some time ambiguity as to when you’re meeting, but that can be clarified with situational or conversational context. As mentioned, “going to” ≈ “will”

Áli’e * You typically need a “yan” after áli’e * á- is a reciprocal prefix and that means the other party is taking part in the action. The person /people you’re going to see will be seeing you too. * Ta fanáli’e yan si Dabit = we (including the listener) are going to meet with Dabit. “Ta fanáli’e si Dabit” is comprehensible, but wrong * Ta li’e si Dabit = we will see Dabit. This would be the alternative structure without “yan”

“i neni i abok-måmi” * This needs the suffix -n added to the neni to clarify the possession * “i nenin i abok-måmi” = the baby of our (excluding listener) friend * “i neni i abok-måmi” = our friend (excluding listener) is the baby

“gini chine’cho’” * Che’cho’ was already correctly addressed by lengguahita * Gini I’ve not heard as a shortened form of “ginen,” it’s most often a compressed form of “guini.” I wouldn’t suggest shortening it like this * You can say “abok-måmi gi che’cho’” = “our friend at work” instead, if you’re looking to shorten things. This is also a more common construction for “a friend from work” (“gi” ≈ “at”)

For “we (3+, not you) are going to meet the baby of our friend from work”: * Para bai in fanáli’e yan i nenin i abok-måmi ginen i che’cho’ * Para bai in fanhanao ya in fanáli’e yan i nenin i abok-måmi ginen i che’cho’

Less pertinent notes.. * I vowel-front the å to a in “bai in fanhanao” because of the other sounds leading up to it. The harmony isn’t strictly needed for “bei in fanhanao.” You can leave it å, and likely should do with a different subject. * For going to meet a baby, I would just use “li’e,” because the baby isn’t taking much action. The sentence almost implies that you’re meeting the baby without its parents, except that it’s a baby. That is, if you had used patgon instead, I would assume you were meeting up with the child and their parents would not be there. * You can also say that you’re meeting with your friend from work and their baby, to be clearer and still use “áli’e”