Talk:Filipino language

Proposed Corrections by F.A. Oreas

• Filipino as an L2 Language. The article cited a statistical figure of 45 million L2 users. Note that L2 defined as "a person's second language; language that is not the native language (first language or L1) of the speaker, but is learned later." Citation of this authority presents a rather unimpugnable evidence of factual information entirely nullifying other contradictory information equally cited in the article. Rendered a contradicting claim for example is the the statutory description of Filipino provided under KWL Proclamation 92-1 which in part states that "Filipino is the native dialect that is spoken and written in Metro Manila." As a matter of sheer literal sense, anything qualified a native dialect can never be classified an L2 language being a 2nd or subsequently learned language. The information there are 45 million L2 users of Filipino (the total number of speakers) makes the description provided by the Commission on Filipino Language an erroneous claim if not simply uninformed thus maliciously/irresponsibly fallacious.
  
• Filipino as pluricentric language.. The article's categorization of the Filipino a pluricentric language was cited as a plain declarative statement without providing any explanation that would, as a matter of rule, characterize Filipino as such. For a more objective informed appreciation, please consider the normative criteria provided by [Working Group on Non-Dominant Varieties of Pluricentric Languages]. Relative the Filipino, not one of the 7 criteria provided may suffice a distinctive attribute of the Filipino.
  F.A.Oreas, 112.201.36.77 (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Review of the Article Filipino Language by Ferdinand A. Oreas

Sec. 6, Article XIV of the 1987 Philippine Constitution declares; "The national language of the Philippines is FILIPINO xxx" [capitalization supplied]. Comparatively, Sec. 3(2) of the 1973 Constitution provides; "The Batasang Pambansa shall take steps towards the development and formal adoption of a common national language to be known as Filipino."

Note that the 1973 provision written in the future tense (shall take steps towards development and formal adoption of a common national language). Prior the the promulgation of the 1973 Constitution, the prevailing national language was Pilipino pursuant the efforts of then Sanggunian ng Wika'ng Pambansa created under the 1935 Constitution. At the time it was superceded by the 1973 Constitution, Pilipino as language remain to exist. In fact, Sec. 3(3) (1973 Constitution) provides "Until otherwise provided by law, English and Pilipino shall be the official languages. However, the author of the Constitution saw the need to introduce a shift relative the official common national language from Pilipino to Filipino hence the provision mandating Batasang Pambansa to take steps towards DEVELOPMENT and FORMAL ADOPTION of Filipino as a language.

The very words develop and formal adoption literally implies that at the time the 1973 Constitution was promulgated, FILIPINO as a language was yet to be developed, let alone, be formally adopted as an official language. Said otherwise, FILIPINO at the time was yet to be constituted hence, a language that was yet to exist.

That being the mandate of the 1973 Constitution, the National Legislature during the Marcos regime, for whatever reason, failed to pass any legislation that would materialize the aforecited provision. Until the enactment of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

When the 1987 Philippine Constitution provided (Sec. 3(2), Art. XIV) that The National Language of the Philippines is Filipino, the framers of the Constitution failed to consider one basic and fundamental matter-of-fact. That is, no language constituted as Filipino exists at the time. Elsewise stated, the Filipino language pertained in the Constitution was still a non-existent language at the time the 1987 Philippine Constitution was enacted.

To prove the foregoing claim, a news article by GMA-News on 25 August 2010 provided the following:

UP Diksiyonaryong Filipino as our OED This rather long story about the development of the Filipino language is the backdrop of the UP Diksiyonaryong Filipino, which was first published in 2001. The general editor of the dictionary, which is co-published by UP Diliman’s Sentro ng Wikang Filipino and Anvil Publishing, is National Artist for Literature and former dean of UP Diliman’s College of Arts and Letters Dr. Virgilio Almario, also known as the poet Rio Alma. The second edition of UP Diksiyonaryong Filipino was launched during the Sawikaan 2010 at the University of the Philippines-Diliman last July 29. In his introduction to the reference book during the launching program, leading Filipino literary critic Isagani R. Cruz said: “This dictionary, whether we like it or not, is the only dictionary in Filipino." He always tells his students to consult the UP Diksiyonaryong Filipino if they have any doubts about the spelling of a particular word.

Note the claim that the ONLY DICTIONARY in Filipino was only published officially in the year 2001. That would be some fourteen years after the enactment of the very constitution declaring Filipino its National Language. This argument rests on the premise that no language may exist absent an official dictionary upon which its fundamental vocabularies are constructed. In the same manner, an official language, in order to officially exist, need to be founded upon well established rule of grammar. Under this premise, let us consider one matter-of-fact; the MAKABAGO'NG ALPHABETO of the Filipino Language was only introduced in the year 1989 of some two years after the ratification of the 1987 Constitution declaring its national language to be Filipino.

Given these two basic facts alone (That the first and only Filipino Dictionary published only in 2001 and the Filipino alphabet introduced only in 1989) suffice to show that FILIPINO as a language was a non-existent language at the time the 1987 Philippine Constitution was enacted.

THE DANGERS OF THE TRUTH BY LEGAL COMMENTATOR, FERDINAND A. OREAS

Sec. 8, Article XIV, 1987 Philippine Constitution provides; "This Constitution shall be promulgated in Filipino and English and shall be translated into major regional languages, Arabic, and Spanish." If all the world don't mind, this proponent at least do, that to this day, no official FILIPINO translation of the 1987 Constitution exists. As per public pronouncements by the Commission on the National Language, the translation is still underway meaning it is still being pondered upon. This brings us to the legal controversy of the CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION.

If the very letters of the Constitution mandates it shall be promulgated in both English and Filipino, the absent of any working translation in the Filipino language is more than sufficient evidence the 1987 Philippine Constitution has not been accordingly promulgated as it has so mandated. I don't how the SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES will resolve the issue herein presented. Thus in paraphrasing; Is a constitution not accordingly promulgated pursuant its very own mandate considered to be validly enacted or constitutional for that matter?

This was probably realized by latter publishers of the text of the 1987 Constitution that the Title Heading of Article XIV of the 1987 Constitution Limited to Education, Science and Technology, Arts, Culture, and Sports. Obviously, the subheading title LANGUAGE is missing. Whether deliberate or otherwise, consider that under Article XIV; Secs. 1 to 5 are provisions about, hence subtitled EDUCATION. Secs. 10 to 13, Science and Technology. Secs. 14 to 18, Arts and Culture. Secs. 19, Sports.

Note that Secs. 6 to 9 which are provisions about Language despite so subtitled seem intriguingly absent and excluded in the Article Heading Title of Article XIV. Again, the heading title of the said Article; Education, Science and Technology, Arts, Culture, and Sports. AND WHAT ABOUT LANGUAGE? Obviously, there is something out-of-the-ordinary given the incomplete subheading representation in the main title of the pertained Title. A Constitution is a very important written manifesto. Given that significance of the document, I can only surmise the framers have hired the best and the most competent editors and proofreaders relative its printing and publication. Such a seemingly nuisance as may be considered a simple (but nonetheless outrageous) erratum simply seem incomprehensible.

As equally incomprehensible as if hitting a strike not one but twice is the language provision on the 1987 (prevailing) Administrative Code of the Philippines. Section 17 of Executive Order 297 dated 25 July 1987 instituting the Administrative Code of 1987 provides:

Official Languages. - Until otherwise provided by law, Pilipino and English shall be the official languages.

Given the prevailing provision of SECTION 7, Article XIV of the 1987 prevailing Constitution providing that; "For purposes of communication and instruction, the official languages of the Philippines are Filipino and, until otherwise provided by law, English," the above quoted language provision of the Administrative Code is palpably in contradiction hence, unconstitutional.

To my mind, the contradiction thus unconstitutionality may have been a deliberate scheme as to cloak some sense of legitimacy Administrative Acts performed by the executive recognizing its powers provided by and under the virtue of a Constitution that is Unconstitutional. By electing PILIPINO and ENGLISH rather than FILIPINO and ENGLISH as its official languages, the 1987 Administrative Code seem to ditch its last recourse admitting the legal question on the official existence of the Filipino language on the time of the enactment of the 1987 Constitution (which, anyway is questioned Unconstitutional) that its Administrative Acts should remain valid because it circumvented the language mandate expressed by the Constitution.

Thus the legal question raised by this proponent; is the promulgation of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, constitutional; AND, is the institution of the Philippine National Language that is Filipino, valid and legitimate?

Provided otherwise; is the REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES a duly constituted Republic? AND Is the Filipino Language validly and legitimately instituted official LANGUAGE?

A REVIEW BY: FERDINAND A. OREAS
Language Proponent
19 January 19

Road to FA

(Your turn... --F.A.O)

Hello, I shall begin editing this article shortly. I am aware that the Filipino vs Tagalog language debate is an awry one so I am writing here the general treatment of the article that I am working on, and hereby open it to discussion.

It is the assumption that:

1. Filipino is the prestige register of the Tagalog language. Thus the article shall mostly discuss its history as Filipino, its official status, ongoing debates, standardized orthographies published by the Commission on the Filipino Language, and scholarly commentaries on the Filipino-Tagalog issue.
2. Filipino and Tagalog are essentially the same. As pointed above in discussions from several years ago, (non-verbatim) it is patently stupid to define Filipino as a novel language just because it uses a newer, larger alphabet than Tagalog, or that Filipino uses English loanwords extensively and Tagalog is somehow a purist standard. Tagalog is not a dead language. We should not treat it as a snapshot of the pre-Filipino (language) era, or a snapshot of the purist movement during Marcos' era. As such, discussion of grammar, linguistic categorization, phonology etc will remain in the Tagalog language article, being 100% the same after all.
3. Filipino, rather than being a unitary language for the many Philippine languages, was born out of politics. The case of Filipino is unique because we cannot compare Filipino-as-standard register with Standard Swedish or Modern Standard Arabic, both of which are a standardization of diverse, mutually unintelligible dialect continua. That is why there is no logic in discussing Filipino's grammatical aspects when they're 100% the same with Tagalog. Its case is more akin to the case of Serbo-Croatian, a lingua franca in Eastern Europe, which has been standardized into Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin languages; or Hindustani and Urdu and Hindi languages. At any rate, they are all the same.

Thus I see the this Filipino language article to be more similar to the structure of Standard Swedish. I realize that working towards become a Featured Article is difficult because there is no precedent. Out of the very few Featured and Good articles on languages, none are about standard varieties; they all discuss the language itself. It would take a lot of work overhauling this article. As they say in Japan, よろしくお願いいたします。 舎利弗 (talk) 11:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

.POINT OF CLARIFICATION FROM LANGUAGE ADVOCATE F.A.OREAS

Let us not mislead the central issue of the debate. The issue is not up between Tagalog and Filipino. Rather, between Filipino and Pilipino. As far as Philippine standard semantics suggests, Tagalog is a dialect and not a language. Filipino superceded Pilino makings the later now a dead language only to realize Filipino itself a non existing language at the time it was instituted. That being the case, who would qualify whether or not the language consequently constituted purporting to be Filipino indeed is Filipino. To begin with, WHAT IS FILIPINO?

On a side note, I encourage civility if not sophistication among us, contributors - pleas refrain using cursing words as SUPID. Respect civility.

-- An objective note from Ferdinand A. Oreas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.200.21.37 (talk) 12:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

AN EQUALLY FRUSTRATED ATTEMPT AT LEGITIMIZING FILINO

Please take careful notice of the Twenty-Pesos bill of the NGC Philippine currency. Printed therein is the phrase FILINO AS THE NATIONAL LANGUAGE 1935. Read again the main article and find out the 1935 Saliga'ng batas made no mention of any particular language for its National Language. Ask any Philippine History student and they will tell you there's an embarrassing errata in our P20 peso bill. And a simple errata as may seem but would qualify a Conspiracy Theory to a fiction writer.

-- F.A.OREAS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.200.21.37 (talk) 04:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Undid Kwami's RV

I undid an rv by User:Kwamikagami to restore it to the version I last edited. No proper rationale was given for his action besides "can't speak for native speakers," which doesn't really make much sense. The edits added prior to the RV were not vandalism and were properly cited. They merit discussion before being reverted. 舎利弗 (talk) 19:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

You've started an edit war. Please resolve here first.

The official line is that Filipino is an artificial language based on all the languages of the Philippines. This is of course nonsense, but if it were true, there would be no native speakers. The numbers you give are the numbers for Tagalog. From this POV, Filipino is the same as Tagalog and this article should therefore be merged into that one. We do not have two languages here, so presenting Filipino as a separate language is unwarranted. Standard forms of languages aren't usually thought of as having native languages (cf. the Standand Swedish you mentioned above, which does not have a box giving a number of supposed native speakers), but if you argue Filipino does, you'll need a source showing which Tagalog speakers are specifically speakers of Filipino. It can't be all of them. You also say that the ethnicity that is natively Filipino speaking is the Filipino people, which is not so: Filipinos speak hundreds of languages natively.

I'd be happy with a ref that says something like "60% of native Tagalog speakers speak the standard form, also known as Filipino", but not with counting Tagalog twice as if all those people were natively bilingual. We could also delete the box, if you think it's more trouble than it's worth, bringing it more into line with Standard Swedish. — kwami (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

See? If you gave a rationale for the revert earlier, I wouldn't have thought of you as a trigger-happy revert button clicker. I apologize the for the trouble. I forgot to assume good faith.

Moving on, what are your thoughts on merging the pages? I was considering proposing this option before I made the edits since even scholarly works hardly make the distinction between the two, and for all intents and purposes Filipino and Tagalog are just the same, with only the former being the politically correct name. I feel uncomfortable to say that there are no Filipino native speakers. Deleting the box entirely is also a good option I think to make it more in line with other articles on standard languages. What do you think? 舎利弗 (talk) 19:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

That's why I had put "see Tagalog" in the box for native speakers.

Deleting the box would be fine.

As for merging, I think the history section of this article could be merged into the "Official status" section of Tagalog under a name like "Standardization" (or whatever). The "Tagalog vs Filipino" section could be kept as-is or changed to "Name". For other standard languages we might have distinct phonological inventories or grammatical rules that would warrant a separate language, but AFAICT that's not the case with Filipino, and the political implications of the name "Filipino" are relevant to Tagalog. — kwami (talk) 19:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It might be a more productive activity to just merge Filipino into Tagalog. Keeping separate articles for the two is viable (Tagalog discussing all the grammar stuff and Filipino discussing the standardization and legal status stuff) but there would be idiosyncrasies such as Filipino not having native speakers and readers searching for the Filipino language article only to find that it's all talk about the standardization and not about the language at all. I imagine writing the two articles that way would be a constant cause for contention.

I'm posting this to Wikiproject Philippines to get consensus from other editors before working on the merge. 舎利弗 (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I know many Filipinos, and I've never once heard them refer to "Filipino" as a language. The word is used to refer to people from the Philippines. Nearly all Filipinos speak Tagalog. There is a proportion of Filipinos for whom Tagalog is the native language. Most Filipinos who do not learn it as a native tongue learn it in school and from work and television. It originated as a dialect of one part of the Philippines and was made the national language. I don't understand why there would be two separate articles. I think there should be one, on Tagalog. CorinneSD (talk) 22:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

There might be a reason to have an article on Filipino languages, giving an overview of Tagalog as well as all the other languages of the Philippines. CorinneSD (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

You have Philippine languages for that. The adjectival form of the noun Philippines is only "Filipino" when you mean something related to the Filipino people or the Filipino language; Philippine elsewhere. 舎利弗 (talk) 00:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Back when I was still a student studying Filipino language, we were taught that Filipino is like a dialect of Tagalog, and specifically the Tagalog that is used in the city and region of Manila which is different from how they speak Tagalog in the provinces, like Batangas Tagalog which is said to be the real Tagalog. And non-native Tagalog speakers who only learned the language in schools as a compulsory subject could only speak Tagalog the way people in Manila speak Filipino, and there are obvious differences with the original tagalog of Batangas and other provinces. For example, Filipino is more like a fusion of Tagalog, Spanish and English, whereas Tagalog has its own peculiar words and sentence structures that is almost 100% unmixed Austronesian. A Filipino speaker would for example have a hard time understanding a Batangueño or Quezon Tagalog. Filipino is cosmopolitan Taglish (Tagalog mixed with a lot of English). So, as a Filipino speaker, I know it is different from Tagalog that I hear when I go to the Southern Tagalog region, and therefore is a dialect or language on its own. And there must be a new study suggesting that Filipino has more 'native' and 'second language' speakers given that it is the official language of the country, and language of communication and media, whereas the 'pure' Tagalog is only confined to the Southern Tagalog region and Bulacan.--RioHondo (talk) 05:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

How many times do we have to repeat that Tagalog is not a purist snapshot of the 60s, and that only Filipino may borrow foreign words. Tagalog is not dead. It is still developing and it may use the word keyk (English: cake) for the simple reason that its speakers are using it. Or do you mean to suggest that Cebuano Visayan speakers may not use foreign-derived terms. Is that a new language then when a Cebuano uses kompyuter (English: computer)? What about speakers of Ilocano? Only in Tagalog do we see this duality where we define everything "pure" as true Tagalog and label everything else Filipino. It might be a common misconception but clearly scholarly works on the Tagalog language do not agree.

Even the previous chair of the Commission on the Filipino language, Ricardo Ma Nolasco, who also authored Gramatikang Filipino ([Filipino Grammar] Error: {{Langx}}: text has italic markup (help)) and lead the Department of Education in its current Mother Tongue–Based Multi-Lingual Education program, said:

Certain academicians equate Tagalog with “purist” usage and Filipino with “non-purist” usage. To them, “pulong” and “gurô” are Tagalog words, while “miting” and “titser” are Filipino words. Word borrowing however is not a reliable basis for language differentiation. Zamboangueño (Chavacano) borrowed heavily from Spanish but evolved a different grammar from Spanish. It cannot be understood by Spanish speakers. ...

But whether it is simple Tagalog or deep Tagalog, pure Tagalog or halu-halo Tagalog, it is still Tagalog. They all belong to one language.

From [1].

There are also several studies on Tagalog/Filipino–English code switching at Google Scholar. Please provide at least one that says code switching makes it a new language and that language is Filipino, and that Tagalog may not code switch. We cannot take your claims seriously until you provide a study backing it up. 舎利弗 (talk) 11:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

This discussion, headed Road to FA and with a subhead of Undid Kwami's RV seems to have gone off the rails. Please, guys, re-read WP:TPG. Let me requote the lead paragraph there here:

The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject.

I am tempted to close this discussion, but there have probably been points made which might be useful in improving this one particular WP article (which is what discussions on this talk page are supposed to be about). could participants please refocus on discussions about improvements to this particular WP article.

Also, I remark on the existence of the Languages of the Philippines article in addition to the Philippine languages article mentioned above (those two might be candidates for merger) and I will opine that I oppose merging this article into the Tagalog language article (and deleting it or turning it into a redirect to that article) for reasons about which I will not elaborate here and now. It seems to me, though, that the consensus here is against the proposed merger. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

If we retained this Filipino language article, then what do you suggest its content should be? As one I pointed right from the start where it will only contain discussion about standardization, while all of the linguistic stuff stays in the Tagalog language article? I fine either way.

We cannot merge Languages of the Philippines to the Philippine languages article because the latter discusses a linguistic classification, but the former discusses languages spoken in the Philippines, including languages not belonging to the Philippine language subfamily, e.g., Chavacano language, English, Arabic and Chinese spoken by Filipino-Chinese. 舎利弗 (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not to merge Languages of the Philippines and Philippine languages is a separate discussion. I thought this discussion was whether to merge the Filipino language article with the Tagalog article. Regarding the latter, I agree with 舎利弗. Usually, a language evolves more quickly, and borrows more words from other languages, in an urban area. That does not normally make it a different language, though, from the language where it originated. Look at English in England. The English spoken in London is different from the English spoken in other cities such as Liverpool and Manchester and in rural areas of England -- in accent and in a few idiomatic expressions and vocabulary words and possibly a few words recently borrowed from other languages -- but all these varieties are still called English. I think it is silly and goes against rules of linguistics to say that just because Tagalog spoken in metro Manila has more words borrowed from other languages and a few different expressions, it is a different language from the Tagalog spoken in the area where it originated. Also, the word "pure" to refer to a language is not usually used by linguists. Even the ones some might consider pure are evolving. CorinneSD (talk) 19:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I think a merge which would eliminate this article or turn it into a redirect to the Tagalog language article would be a bad idea. I think that Tagalog as a language is a fit topic for a standalone article, and in that article there ought to be a section which summarizes the Tagalog->Pilipino->Filipino evolution, the formation/accomplishments/impact of the Commission on the Filipino Language, the designation of Filipino as the national language, and the similarities and differences between Tagalog and Filipino. That section ought to contain a WP:SS {{main}} link to this article, and this article ought to cover those areas in more detail.

For the present, and probably for at least the next several decades, this article's presentation of Filipino as a prestige register of the Tagalog language strikes me as a good one, with details about the linguistic aspects of the Tagalog language left to the Tagalog language article and linguistic differences detailed here. I don't speak either Tagalog or Filipino, but my understanding is that Filipino (as and to the extent that it has to this point been strictly defined) does have some differences (mainly in vocabulary) from Tagalog (using whatever definition one wishes to choose to nail down specifics of Tagalog as a language). I also think that there is plenty of detail about the political and sociological aspects of the designation of Filipino as the national language to warrant coverage of those details in a standalone article with this name separate from the Tagalog language article.

Re WP articles about different flavors of a language, see e.g., articles grouped in Category:English_dialects. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I would like to clarify though that if we do keep this article, it would only discuss the standardization-as-process, not Filipino-as-language. Explaining "the similarities and differences between Tagalog and Filipino" is not possible from a linguistic standpoint because there is not one—to my knowledge, and I will gladly withdraw this claim should anyone point to a study to the contrary—comparative grammars or dictionaries between Filipino and Tagalog that show these differences. You do not have grammars that explain Filipino grammar while pointing out its differences or similarities to Tagalog; you also do not have dictionaries that explicitly label entries as Filipino or Tagalog (unlike in many English dictionaries where there are some entries explicitly labelled as British English or American English). The nearest you have is in UP Diksyunaryo Filipino where there are some etymological information (whether the word is derived from Tagalog roots, or that word was derived elsewhere).

I must remind that word-borrowing is not enough to define a new language. And even if we do both agree that Filipino and Tagalog are the same language, with Filipino being a prestige register of Tagalog (i.e., a subset), I don't think it is possible to label definitely one word as belonging to either. This task is futile because there is no linguistic difference between the two to begin with. The only difference is the name and the political nuances. There being a difference is a myth and is unattested in scholarly works. Again, I challenge everyone to provide a reliable source to the contrary so we can close this discussion. 舎利弗 (talk) 01:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I haven't read everything above, but a few comments: 舎利弗 (is that 'Charley'?), I agree with what you just said. We've already achieved consensus on just that, or s.t. very similar. Corinne, I get a somewhat similar impression, but the govt does say the national language is "Filipino". That is, the language of the Filipino people. The idea that this is anything but Tagalog is a political fiction, but nonetheless the name is used. RioHondo, Filipino is based on Manila dialect, but it's not quite the same thing, just as RP is not exactly London dialect, Hyōjungo is not exactly Tokyo dialect, Putonghua is not exactly Beijing dialect, etc. Wtmitchell, "Philippine languages" is a proposed branch of the Austronesian family that includes most, but not all, "languages of the Philippines", as well as a few languages not in the Philippines. I don't particularly like the name, but it does follow our naming guidelines. — kwami (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

My apologies for joining the discussion. I am a speaker of Filipino/Tagalog in the Metro Manila area. As a speaker I believe there is a real difference between the Manila Tagalog and the Batangas version, and it is possible to label which words belong to which. When I went to Mindoro with some friends, and we heard the natives talking, I asked them "Anong salita yan?" (What language is that?) and they replied "Tagalog". Me and my friends were all surprised. How can that be Tagalog when it sounded like another language? We definitely did not understand what they were talking about. The natives explained, "that's because the Tagalog spoken here is the Batangas version. You speak the Manila version. We know both." Curiously, we understand them when they speak to us (because they switch to Manila Tagalog) but we could not understand a thing when they talk to each other, yet they called both forms of speech Tagalog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.191.109.100 (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

RECAPITULATION

Under this heading, I intend to reconcile ideas not otherwise deserving of any conflicting claims as well as those ideas associated with what at a glance seem compatibly comfortable with both similarities and differences each one has but should prove to show that what seems be relative it's observed association is exactly the same absent anything that has to do with being in a company or union. Cases presented here as example particularly the most latter simply presents to us that clear suggestion that limitation of available data we have at hand denies us the chance to appreciate variables we do not usually perceive or see hence, we do not understand. Simplified, an objective observation can only be appreciated as indeed objective if in the process of data gathering, attention given to non-affective variables the same level level of perceptive attention and analytic appreciation given to identified highly affective common factors or directly connecting variances of shared units of measured (or measurable) properties.

That stated, I indulge in providing the following concluding observations, to Witt:

"Filipino & Tagalog Are The Same"

THE PREMISE: The two languages are essentially the same

A. THE SAME

As much as they both belong under the category Philippine Language as well as there are other categories they commonly share without one or the other claiming greater, higher or better entitlement from what the other is entitled, then we may qualify the two as the same. Sameness under the consideration is far from being essentially, significantly, or substantially the same but rather, may they are conditionally the same OR in our common terms; they are the same to some extent where more than sameness, the likeness shared is what in ordinary term called resemblance or relative similarity.

B. ESSENTIALLY THE SAME

PROPOSED RESOLUTION

Contrary Opinion By F.A. Oreas

That Fukien and Mandarin belong under the category Chinese Languages does not necessarily qualify them both as one and the same language much as German and French may not equally be classified similar just because we know of them both as languages European.

MATTER-OF-FACT: "Filipino and Tagalog are in no way the same."

On the deliberation on the National Language Provision of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, Record of the Constitutional Commission Proceedings and Debate, (Vol IV, Page 152; 1 September 1986) provides the following account:

• THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is recognized.
• MR. OPLE: Madam President, xxx I think the record will have to indicate a few crucial points. Will the committee (on National Language provision) offer an explanation as to the difference between Filipino with a capital "F" and Pilipino with a capital "P" (Derived from Tagalog; both grammar and vocabulary: [Comment Supplied])?.
• MR. BENNAGEN: xxx Filipino is different from Pilipino (Standardized Tagalog [Comment supplied]) which is based on only one language, Tagalog. Filipino, on the other hand, is based on different Philippine languages. Also, Pilipino is based essentially on the language usage and peculiarities of the Tagalog group; while Filipino is based on the language usage, similarities and peculiarities of the different Philippine ethnic groups.

I state my focal argument saying that being a "legislated language" (language instituted by law NOT otherwise native language), the above account speaks strongly of the Commission's legislative intent in legislating Filipino as National Language as per the 1987 Philippine Constitution particularly intending the language NOT ONE AND THE SAME as with Pilipino let alone with Tagalog.

To cite other arguments, equally irrefutable, allow me state the following:

To begin with, the Filipino Alphabet (called ang "Bagong Alphabeto") has 28 letters while the Pilipino and Tagalog ABaKaKa has but only 20. The Filipino Dictionary therefore necessarily includes entries not otherwise found in the old Pilipino or Tagalog Talatinigan as there are no Pilipino words entered thereto that begins with such letters as C or F. Allow me note that Pilipino and Tagalog has the same grammar and vocabulary much as the former derived from the latter Hence when the Commission speak of the difference between Pilipino and Filipino, they had in mind the same difference as with Filipino and Tagalog.

As general rule, the Tagalog (or Pilipino) language rests on the rule "Kung anong sulat (baybay) ay siyang basa, kung anong basa, siyang bigkas" (Pronounce as you read, and read as you write). We read and right Pilipino and Tagalog as syllabary; BA-BA-E. Katinig is always paired with a patinig to be able to form a sound. That is not the case in Filipino that we read and write with each letter of every word is its own distinct sound. Take the following example:

• FILIPINO: "Phi-lip-pines" [fi-li-pins] (as it is pronounced in English)
• PILIPINO: "Phi-li-ppi-nes" [pi-li-pi-nes] (reason why "Philippines" in Pilipino is "Pilipinas" [Pi-li-pi-nas] while "Filipinas" in Spanish)

"No Native Speakers of Filipino"

Contrary Opinion By F.A. Oreas

AGAIN, Filipino CANNOT be a native language. It is a language legislated. Unless you are born in the Philippines, you wouldn't know that Filipino is NOT learned at HOME. It is never a child's first language or mother tongue. FILIPINO is learned at school. Yes folks from Philippine Tagalog Region learn Tagalog language at home but no Filipino learn the Filipino language other than in school.

This fact sets the clear difference between the two languages being that Tagalog, a native language, meaning that it can be a language employed in casual conversational communication. This is not the case with FILIPINO as the language used EXCLUSIVELY in formal communications or academic discourse. Take the following for example:

• TAGALOG: 'Di ba sabi naman sa'yo, Bunso, sasabihan mo si Nanay kung tatae ka para masamahan kita sa kubeta."
• FILIPINO: Bunso, sa susunod na dudumi, mangyaring sabihan mo ang ina at nang masamahan kita sa palikuran.

The point in the above example is not merely on the difference on the use of words or the vocabulary. I wish to argue that no mother speaks with her child in the Filipino language. Unless you are to deliver a speech or you are to called by your professor to answer in a recitation, or perhaps you're writing an essay or a research paper that you will only speak or write in Filipino. You don't even talk with a friend in the Filipino language. With your superior or professor perhaps. But you talk with a friend in TAGALOG.

THAT I SPEAK AS FRIEND I FIND I NEED RAISE THESE ARGUMENTS.

-- F. A. OREAS (24 April 2022)

Closing the discussion

Well, the merger was not as controversial as I thought it would be. I would like to ask users Rio Hondo and Wtmitchell if they still have reservations about the proposal so that we can move on to other things, such as actual content writing. 舎利弗 (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I suggest keeping it open, since there may be people who may think the other way. However, while I personally agree with your position on Filipino vis-à-vis Tagalog, at the very least the article should be confined to the specific development of a "Filipino" language. Any content then that more reasonably belongs to the Tagalog article should be moved there. (In fact, the contentious political history of Filipino is quite interesting, as most of the literature that defines Filipino as distinct from Tagalog actually comes from UP Diliman, where the Sentro ng Wikang Filipino/Center of the Filipino Language will most likely have the literature that you're looking for.) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 01:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Sky Harbor above. As I understand things, Resolusyon Blg. 92-1 dated 13 May 1992 said clearly and authoritatively that the Filipino language was defined as of that date as the native language, oral and written, in Metro Manila, the National Capital Region, and the other urban centers in the archipelago. Unless that has changed, and until it does, I think that linguistic details ought to be covered in the Tagalog language article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that source. It will be useful in writing about Filipino later on. I do not disagree with what you said. So it really boils down to the question of whether or not Filipino deserves its own article, or it could well be just a section of the Tagalog article, doesn't it? Seeing how there is consensus of everyone here, with the exception of one user, of what defines Filipino and what the article should comprise, I shall resume shortly to writing the article. Then we can see in a few days whether we should merge it or not. 舎利弗 (talk) 05:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

That's an odd definition. Which sa iba pang sentrong urban are they talking about? Half the big cities are Tagalog-speaking, but half are not. — kwami (talk) 06:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, and even though Tagalog is generally understood in all the major cities outside Manila, the Tagalog they use is different (in vocabulary and pronunciation) from what is spoken in Manila, at least from what I have personally observed. Oh well. 舎利弗 (talk) 07:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The crux of Resolution 92-1 is that over time, the Tagalog of Manila plus the Tagalog spoken non-natively in other urban centers will form the nucleus of a "Filipino" language, largely with vocabulary differences being taken into account. This is why in schools, words like xappo (bell pepper), kalaniyog (eggwhite) or vugi (roe) which are from other languages - and supposedly used in other urban centers but not in Manila - will form "Filipino" as a language distinct from Tagalog. While I don't agree with this definition, this view is what is commonly taught in schools. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 10:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Filipino language and the Filipino people

One of my first edits to this article is that I put in the infobox the Filipino language as the language of the Filipino people. User:Kwamikagami opposed this on grounds that not all Filipinos spoke Filipino (since it's just Tagalog after all). But I have here a source (page 12) which says:

Filipino is the true lingua franca of the Philippines. A 1989 nationwide Ateneo de Manila University survey found out these facts: 92% understood Filipino, 88% read it, 83% spoke it, and 81% wrote it. It also turned out that only 51% understood English. These are 1989 figures. The numbers of those who understand and speak Filipino must have increased as a result of social and linguistic factors that promote the use of a language, like the mass media, transportation and communication, migration, population centers, education, and others.

I'll post the primary source here when I see it. Yes, I am aware that the source is almost three decades old. But the fact couldn't be more evident. I'm finding newer sources now. I think this is enough proof to say that Filipino language is the language of the Filipino ethnic group. I'm opening this issue here to know if other users have any reservations about this statement. 舎利弗 (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

This Filipino–Chamorro–English dictionary mentions the same study (page 1) as "Ateneo Public Opinion Survey, 1989." The source may only be available in snippet view at Google Books, but the figures for those who understood, spoke and wrote Tagalog can be clearly seen if you so enter 92, 88 and 81 on the search field. This adds a conundrum, however, the original survey explicitly used "Tagalog." However, both the dictionary, which was published in 1994 by the Commission on the Filipino Language (KWF), and the source I provided above, published in 2005 by the National Committee on Language and Translation of the National Committee of Culture and the Arts, refer to the language as Filipino using the same Ateneo source. These two are publications 11 years apart from very authoritative sources that make the very obvious implication that Tagalog and Filipino are essentially the same, or at least that all speakers of Tagalog also speak Filipino. :This is not a surprise actually. It's what I've been pointing out all along. Now, what are its implications to our little Filipino language article here?

1. Native speakers of Tagalog are native speakers of Filipino as well, and we should indicate so in the article.
2. Filipino is indeed the language of the Filipino people.

What are your thoughts fellow editors? 舎利弗 (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I just want to reiterate that I have never heard one Filipino refer to their (or any) language as Filipino. They all refer to either Tagalog or to any number of other languages and dialects of the Philippines. Filipino must be a construct of Filipino linguistics professors. CorinneSD (talk) 22:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

This fact is indicated in the article already (that in most contexts, Filipino and Tagalog are viewed synonymous anyway). We can make this even more explicit if people here think the introduction doesn't convey the fact enough. 舎利弗 (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

#1 means Tagalog speakers are bilingual in Filipino; #2 means the entire population of the Philippines are native speakers of Filipino. Both points are incorrect. — kwami (talk) 22:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Care to explain why? But #1 is implied is it not? But not bilingual, however, since that suggests that Filipino and Tagalog are different languages. (We have a source way up there where the ex-KWF chairman says that Filipino and Tagalog belong to a single language. For that reason, I understand, statistical information about the two are used interchangeably by the regulators themselves. As for #2, no what I meant is that Filipino is the lingua franca of the Filipino people and the Philippines. (We have several authoritative sources saying this explicitly.) Not all Poles speak Polish but Polish is considered their language, for the purposes of infoboxes at least. 舎利弗 (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The Poles are an ethnolinguistic group. Filipinos are not, and even if you argue they are, they are not defined as Filipinos by the Filipino language. — kwami (talk) 22:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Why did you remove the L2 information though? 舎利弗 (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

On 14 July 1936 ...

This November 9, 2003 edit, added some content merged into this article from the Pilipino article. The content came from this version of that article, and was unsupported. As added, it read:

On November 13, 1937, the First National Assembly created the National Language Institute, which selected Tagalog for the basis of a new national language. In 1961, this language became known as Pilipino which was later renamed as Filipino.

This July 2, 2007 edit by an anonymous user who neither provided an edit summary not cited a supporting source changed the year 1937 to 1936.

This March 6, 2007 edit added a list of reasons for the selection of Tagalog, citing this now dead unreliable geocities.com web page as a source. This archived copy of that geocities.com web page says that that information came from the book Basic Tagalog for Foreigners and Non-Tagalogs by Paraluman Aspillera ©1993 Charles E. Tuttle Publishing Co., Inc., Tokyo. Google books doesn't seem to list that book, but Amazon.com lists it here.

Getting back to the dates and what this article is asserting to have happened on those dates, this July 15, 2010 edit by an anonymous user who neither provided an edit summary not cited a supporting source changed the November 13 date to read July 14. The wikilink to the Commission on the Filipino Language article was also changed to a redlink to Commission on Central Philippine Language (in both cases the wikilink was piped to read Surian ng Wikang Pambansa). By this time, a separate paragraph wrote of the creation of the National Language Institute, giving a 12 November date and citing an archived copy of the geocities article mentioning the Basic Tagalog for Foreigners and Non-Tagalogs book as a supporting source.

This March 11, 2012 edit changed the July 14 date format to 14 July, among other changes. In this version of the article, the relevant content read:

In 14 July 1936, the Surián ng Wikáng Pambansâ (National Language Institute) selected Tagalog as the basis of the Wikáng Pambansâ (National Language) based on the following factors: [...]

The cite of the geocities.com article which had mentioned the Basic Tagalog for Foreigners and Non-Tagalogs book had been moved up ahead of the list of reasons and a {{cn}} tag had appeared.

I noticed that the relevant content now has no {{cn}} tag. I've added a couple of {{cn span}} tags.

I'm guessing that a bit of research might turn up sources supporting an assertion that the National Language Institute selected Tagalog on 14 July 1937, and that the Basic Tagalog for Foreigners and Non-Tagalogs book might support (with some degree of reliability) the reasons listed by article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:59, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

(added) I just noticed that Andrew Gonsalez (1999). "The Language Planning Situation in the Philippines". In Robert B. Kaplan; Richard B. Baldauf (eds.). Language Planning in Malawi, Mozambique and the Philippines. Multilingual Matters. p. 159. ISBN 978-1-85359-444-1. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help) mentions that Tagalog was "officially proclaimed" in 1939. Being officially proclaimed, tthough, isn't necessarily the same thing as being selected by the National Language Institute, and this is complicated by EO134 s. 1937 (currently cited in the article), wherein on December 13, 1937, President Quezon said that he did thereby, "approve the adoption of the Tagalog as the basis of the national language of the Philippines, and hereby declare and proclaim the national language so based on the Tagalog dialect, as the national language of the Philippines." (which doesn't quite say that he proclaims Tagalog as the national language). EO134 mentions that the National language institute had adopted a resolution on on November 9, 1937 saying that it "selects the Tagalog language to be used as the basis for the evolution and adoption of the national language of the Philippines" and that it recommended "the adoption of Tagalog as the basis of the national language of the Philippines". I haven't complicated things by adding content to the article about any of this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

By 1898 the common language was Spanish, spoken by around 70% of the population- Inflated number

By 1898 the common language was Spanish, spoken by around 70% of the population - Not convincing and irritating

Writers from Spain wrote their personal observations about how barely was Spanish spoken during Spain's twilight days in the Philippines. How did it happen that within a year Spanish as a language was heard everywhere?

Filipinas por España: Narración episódica de la rebelión en el archipiélago filipino, Volume 2 By Emilio Reverter Delmas, Printed Centro editorial de A. Martín, 1897 - Philippines This writer was narrating Rizal's death as well as the insurrection that followed. Clearly he was describing how Spanish was BARELY SPOKEN IN THE PHILIPPINES.

Page 445 "The natives have no knowledge of our Spanish language. It's almost the same as it was during Legazpi's time. They barely understand us and we do not understand the natives, not little, not much. The leyes de Indias (Laws on Education) that has been much talked about has never been complied with and they are dead letters. The same as other laws on the teaching of the Spanish language."

El gran problema de las reformas en Filipinas: planteado por el Español ..By Camilo Millan y Vellanueva,Consejero Ponente de Administración y ex gobernador civil de varias provincias del archipielago -J. Lafont, 1897 - Philippines

Page 36 - "Just stop by unexpectedly in a school in any town to be convinced that the gap reigns such that very few students understand or can get by with Spanish. Very few students write fairly. Students only know their Cathecisms in their own local language. This will sound sad but it is very true that 9/10 of the children of each town has not set foot not even once in the assigned school where he should have been going"

Filipinas y sus habitantesMain Author: González y Martín, R. Published: Béjar, Estab. tip. de la viuda de Aguilar, 1896.

Page 98 - "in spite of the four long centuries that Spain has owned and dominated the Philippines, the elegant and rich Spanish language is barely known and spoken. In the Philippines 8/10 or 9/10 of the natives have no knowledge of Spanish. Without changing the current circumstances in the Archipelago, it will be difficult if not impossible for natives to accept the mother tongue of the country."

Diccionario de filipinismos: con la revisión de lo que al respecto lleva publicado la Real academia española By Wenceslao Emilio Retana-Imprenta de la Casa Editorial Bailly-Baillière, 1921

Page 2 "When the Spanish domination in the Philippines ceased, only the privileged were speaking Spanish. The curious phenomenon is that nowadays Spanish is spoken more than it was spoken and written when Spain was in the Philippines."

"more than it was spoken and written when Spain was in the Philippines" Wenceslao Retana said that as well as Henry Ford who authored Woodrow Wilson: The Man and His Work By Henry Jones Ford - Princeton March 1916. Neither of the two authors said that the increment in the number of Spanish speakers was by leaps and bounds. Henry Jones Ford immediately followed his statement on the increased number of Spanish speakers with the following:

Page 217 - "Meanwhile the hold of native dialect is apparently not shaken at all but on the contrary its use is being strengthened by the activity of patriotic sentiment. Native dialect is the medium through which the abundant literature of Filipino politics reaches the masses and at present it looks as if the vernacular will be the permanent channel of popular thought and feeling"

This is what Henry Ford wrote about the current languages in use during 1916: P. 213 - "The Filipino gentry speak Spanish and the masses speak native dialects which are not low languages but are refined and capable instruments of thought producing poetry drama and romantic literature although deficient in science"IsaLang (talk) 05:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

What the discussion here never mentioned was why the Tagalog was the largest speaking dialect in the Philippines? Because it was forcibly required on all schools, you cannot graduate from a Philippine school if you do not finish Tagalog. The native dialect was also banned in schools by the tagalogs.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Filipino language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070616101625/http://www.multilingual-matters.net/jmmd/019/0487/jmmd0190487.pdf to http://www.multilingual-matters.net/jmmd/019/0487/jmmd0190487.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070616101625/http://www.multilingual-matters.net/jmmd/019/0487/jmmd0190487.pdf to http://www.multilingual-matters.net/jmmd/019/0487/jmmd0190487.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081230040958/http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2007/sept/02/yehey/top_stories/20070902top2.html to http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2007/sept/02/yehey/top_stories/20070902top2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081230041933/http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2007/sept/03/yehey/metro/20070903met6.html to http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2007/sept/03/yehey/metro/20070903met6.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081230042645/http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2007/sept/04/yehey/metro/20070904met9.html to http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2007/sept/04/yehey/metro/20070904met9.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Just a question

This is concerning the first few sentences in the article. these seem to be rather harsh and not based on factual evidence. They also could be offensive to the Tagalog speaking people. This is definitely not something that should exist on a Wikipedia article.

parts of concerning language are: Fascist Manilla FAKE national language — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yugimumoto1 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Discrepancy

"The first dictionary of Tagalog was written by the Franciscan Pedro de San Buenaventura [...] A latter book of the same name was written by Czech Jesuit missionary Paul Klein at the beginning of the 18th century. [...] He wrote the first dictionary..."

So which is it? They can't *both* have written the first Tagalog dictionary. Nuttyskin (talk) 15:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Filipino language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080127174205/http://www.census.gov.ph/data/sectordata/sr05153tx.html to http://www.census.gov.ph/data/sectordata/sr05153tx.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140522065757/http://globalnation.inquirer.net/news/news/view/20070618-71865/New_center_to_document_Philippine_dialects?ModPagespeed=noscript to http://globalnation.inquirer.net/news/news/view/20070618-71865/New_center_to_document_Philippine_dialects?ModPagespeed=noscript
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130604230158/http://globalnation.inquirer.net/news/news/view/20070822-84080/3-Bulacan-courts-to-use-Filipino-in-judicial-proceedings to http://globalnation.inquirer.net/news/news/view/20070822-84080/3-Bulacan-courts-to-use-Filipino-in-judicial-proceedings
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131012073429/http://www.ncca.gov.ph/downloads/balanghay.pdf to http://www.ncca.gov.ph/downloads/balanghay.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Filipino = Tagalog?

Why the article Tagalog language are there? The Filipino and Tagalog are the same national language of the Philippines. So you merge in Tagalog language article. The language are same. So, if you want to merge it, you disambiguate the article, thanks. --Cyrus noto3at bulaga ^{Talk to me} 08:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

See relevant info at Talk:Tagalog language#Linguistic basis vs. Standardized form -- who determines whether two languages are separate?. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Relationship to Hawaiian

I added that it was distantly related to Hawaiian as an Austronesian language, but that edit got reverted because it wasn’t cited. How can I cite this or someone else adds it? Bernspeed (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I may be the reverter, here or somewhere, perhaps in some other article which led to this here; I vaguely recall something like this, but not the details. Anyhow, my first-blush reactions are (1) Filipino is a still-evolving artificial language currently based largely on Tagalog but with a constitutional mandate from 1987 saying, "As it evolves, it shall be further developed and enriched on the basis of existing Philippine and other languages.", (2) this detail may be too far down in the weeds for this article, (3) if this detail re Hawaiian is relevant here, similar details re other languages are also probably relevant. I did do some looking around starting at the Austronesian languages article and saw what looked like some relevant info in the intro and the first bullet point in the Syntax section. It looks like some more info can be found in Wouk, Fay; Ross, Malcolm (2002). "Final words: research themes in the history and typology of western Austronesian languages". The History and Typology of Western Austronesian Voice Systems. Pacific Linguistics, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, The Australian National University. ISBN 978-0-85883-477-4. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help) Hope that helps. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Was this article vandalized?

I get the feeling it may have at some point. Also, the newest topics in this forum are…strange :) to say the least BadConlangNumber7021 (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Probably. Many articles are. Do you have something specific you're concerned about? --Onorem (talk) 22:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Masayahin at tapat sa kapwa

mahal ko pamilya ko 4633 46339 112.204.174.55 (talk) 09:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)