BLACKWELL, Justice.

Dana Foster sued the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority under the provisions of the Georgia Tort Claims Act, OCGA § 50-21-20 et seq., alleging that the Authority is liable in tort for injuries that she sustained while riding as a passenger on its bus. The Authority moved for judgment on the pleadings, noting that the period of limitation for a claim under the Tort Claims Act is two years, see OCGA § 50-21-27(c), and Foster filed her lawsuit more than two years after she sustained the injuries in question.1 Foster, however, had given ante litem notice of her claim to the Authority and the Department of Administrative Services as required by the Tort Claims Act, see OCGA § 50-21-26(a), and she argued that the period of limitation was tolled for so long as her notice of claim was pending.2 In support of this argument, Foster pointed to OCGA § 50-21-27(e), which provides that "[a]ll provisions relating to the tolling of limitations of actions, as provided elsewhere in this Code, shall apply to causes of action brought pursuant to [the Tort Claims Act]," and OCGA § 36-33-5(d), which provides that "[t]he running of the statute of limitations shall be suspended during the time that the demand for payment is pending before such authorities without action on their part." The trial court denied the motion for judgment on the pleadings, and the Authority took an interlocutory appeal.

Concluding that the tolling provision of OCGA § 36-33-5(d) has no application to a claim asserted under the Tort Claims Act, the Court of Appeals reversed. Ga. Regional Transp. Auth. v. Foster, 329 Ga.App. 258, 261, 764 S.E.2d 862 (2014). To reach this conclusion, the Court of Appeals in its opinion examined at length what it perceived as the legislative purpose underlying the Tort Claims Act, and it reasoned that OCGA § 36-35-5(d) would "thwart the legislature's intent" and "cannot be harmonized with the [Tort Claims Act]."3 Id. We issued a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals, and although our analysis differs from that of the Court of Appeals, we conclude that the Court of Appeals reached the right result. Accordingly, we affirm its judgment.

As we have explained before, when we read statutory text, "we must presume that the General Assembly meant what it said and said what it meant," Deal v. Coleman, 294 Ga. 170, 172(1)(a), 751 S.E.2d 337 (2013) (citation and punctuation omitted), and so, "we must read the statutory text in its most natural and reasonable way, as an ordinary speaker of the English language would." FDIC v. Loudermilk, 295 Ga. 579, 588(2), 761 S.E.2d 332 (2014) (citation and punctuation omitted). According to OCGA § 50-21-27(e), "[a]ll provisions relating to the tolling of limitations of actions, as provided elsewhere in this Code, shall apply to causes of action brought pursuant to [the Tort Claims Act]." (Emphasis supplied.) The statute means just what it says: statutory tolling provisions apply to claims under the Tort Claims Act in the same way, in the same manner, and to the same extent that those provisions would apply to claims not brought under the Tort Claims Act.4 If a tolling provision otherwise would apply to a particular claim, it applies notwithstanding that the claim is subject to the Tort Claims Act. The question in this case, therefore, is whether the tolling provision of OCGA § 36-33-5(d) applies by its own terms to the claim that Foster asserts against the Authority.

That provision speaks of tolling a period of limitation "during the time that the demand for payment is pending before such authorities without action on their part." OCGA § 36-33-5(d) (emphasis supplied). The statutory references to "demand for payment" and "authorities" are particularized; the statute clearly means to refer to some specific "demand for payment" and particular "authorities." And the context of subsection (d) — in particular, the other provisions of OCGA § 36-33-5 — reveals the specific "demand for payment" and "authorities" to which subsection (d) refers. See Smith v. Ellis, 291 Ga. 566, 573(3)(a), 731 S.E.2d 731 (2012) ("In construing statutes ... we do not read words in isolation, but rather in context." (Citations omitted)). See also May v. State, 295 Ga. 388, 391-392, 761 S.E.2d 38 (2014) ("For context, we may look to the other provisions of the same statute, the structure and history of the whole statute, and the other law — constitutional, statutory, and common law alike — that forms the legal background of the statutory provision in question." (Citations omitted)). As a whole, OCGA § 36-33-5 concerns claims against municipal corporations.5 Subsection (a) generally requires ante litem notice for any "claim for money damages against any municipal corporation on account of injuries to person or property." Subsection (b) concerns the time and manner in which the notice must be presented to "the governing authority of the municipal corporation." Subsection (c) requires the governing authority to "consider and act upon the claim." Subsection (e) concerns the content of the notice of claim, and it requires that the notice "include the specific amount of monetary damages being sought." And subsection (f) requires service of the notice of claim upon "the mayor or the chairperson of the city council or city commission, as the case may be." When subsection (d) speaks of tolling "during the time that the demand for payment is pending before such authorities without action on their part," it means "during the time that the demand for payment [for a claim against a municipal corporation] is pending before [the governing authority of that municipal corporation] without action on [its] part."

By its own terms, OCGA § 36-33-5(d) permits the tolling of the period of limitation only for claims against municipal corporations. The Authority is not a municipal corporation, and for that reason, OCGA § 36-33-5(d) does not apply to any claim against the Authority, whether under the Tort Claims Act or otherwise.6 The Court of Appeals correctly reversed the denial of the motion for judgment on the pleadings, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.