Talk:Baybayin

Was RA really the same or considered the same as the DA sound in pre-Hispanic Tagalog?

I'm not an expert but I'm think pre-Hispanic Tagalogs don't distinguish between the /da/ and the /ra/ sound. This ambiguity even exists to this day. Dumaraan is the more correct form although dumadaan is acceptable. We also have dumarating instead of dumadating. Dito and rito are also equivalent. Some other examples: nagdadasal/nagdarasal, dinadagdag/dinaragdag, dumadagsa/dumaragsa. --seav 15:32, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

Baybaying text support

Please who ever knows how to put the baybayin writing within this article please do it because there is no lettering, wikipedia can't support the baybayin text so it only shows boxes.Manager0916 (talk) 03:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

See the links at Baybayin#Font downloads. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed renaming

The Tagalog alphabet is a better and more familiar name, I believe, then Baybayin; for instance, it's the Unicode designation. I propose to move this article. Evertype 10:55, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)

Baybayin or alibata is the term being used in the academe. Many Filipinos are familiar with this term. I think there is no such thing as Tagalog alphabet. Baybayin was used not only by the Tagalogs but other ethnic group as well. Although, the apperance and style differ from one group to another. The modern Philippine alphabet that is being used by all languages in the country is called Filipino alphabet, which uses the Latin letters. --Jojit fb 5 July 2005 05:32 (UTC)

I don't believe that is correct. The Philippine scripts include Tagalog, Tagbanwa, Buhud, and Hanunoo. I have more materials which use the term "Tagalog script" than "Baybayin". (I am fine with preferring "script" to "alphabet". This script was encoded in the Unicode Standard as Tagalog, and the experts who consulted with us did not prefer the term "Baybayin". Evertype July 5, 2005 15:27 (UTC)

Spaniards in the 16th century called it "Tagalog letters" even though it was used by other languages such as Ilokano and Bikolano. Baybayin was an old Tagalog term to refer to any writing system. On the other hand, alibata was a term used by Paul Versoza in 1939. In Philippine schools, alibata and baybayin are the most common terms used when referring to this script. Even in Google search, alibata and baybayin are more common than "Tagalog script" and "Tagalog alphabet". From the POV of Filipinos, they won't understand if you say the term "Tagalog script" or "Tagalog alphabet". They might confuse it with the modern Filipino alphabet. I might agree if we make a redirection pages for "Old Tagalog script" or "Old Tagalog alphabet" but the main article would still be "Baybayin". --Jojit fb 6 July 2005 05:19 (UTC)

Also, you may want to indicate in the article that some experts did not prefer the use of "Baybayin" as Unicode Standard. --Jojit fb 6 July 2005 05:29 (UTC)

Hmm, any links to that information "that some experts did not prefer the use of 'Baybayin' as Unicode Standard"?? --- Laibcoms (talk | Contribs) 08:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Evertype, it is correct. "Baybayin" is the name of our writing system or script. "Tagalog" is the name of the language and people living in the Tagalog region. "Tagbanwa, Buhid, and Hanunoo" scripts all came from the Baybayin script, you could say that it was a branched-evolution. "Baybayin" script is known to have been used to write in all (or most) Philippine Languages - Tagalog, Cebuano, Bikol, Ilokano, Kapampangan, and the list goes on. The first and only time that Baybayin was called the Tagalog Script was because of Unicode. Either we follow the non-Filipinos in this matter or we follow those very people whose roots came from it. --- Laibcoms (talk | Contribs) 08:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

-Baybayin was only used by the Tagalogs, Kapampangans, and Ilokanos. Other ethnic groups used different writing systems. Baybayin, Tagbanwa, Buhid, and Hanunoo all came from the Kawi script.71.171.2.236 (talk) 10:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No. "Baybayin" is the writing script. "Kapampangan", "Tagbanwa", "Hanunoo", "Buhid", and "Bisaya" are variations of "Baybayin". If you create a family-tree of it, Baybayin is the tree, all the rest are the branches. Call it the "Baybayin Family" to make it easy to understand. The UP guys (if I remember correctly) submitted "Tagalog" to the Unicode consortium to differentiate the "original/parent style" to its children like Hanunoo, Buhid, sulat Kapampangan, sulat Bisaya, and Tagbanwa. 222.127.223.70 (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Baybayin is similar to the Sanskrit in that there are different local/regional styles. A local/regional style doesn't stop being Sanskrit just because they added/changed something else. Baybayin is the same, the local/regional styles like sulat Kapampangan, sulat Bisaya, Hanunoo, Buhid, Tagbanwa, does not stop being Baybayin. These are still Baybayin, just a local/regional style. To avoid confusion, the people behind the submission of Baybayin to the Unicode consortium opted for the local/regional style-name hence, Tagalog script in Unicode. 222.127.223.70 (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the argument presented that the International weighs more than the local. The International scene most of the time only relies on second and third and even fourth level sources. They want to write a book under the pretense of "keeping a record of things". They will use whatever term they want based on what they understood from their perspective. They first encountered the Baybayin Family when they landed in the Tagalog region, why? Because they know that for them to conquer Las Islas Filipinas, they need to control the heart of the islands - the Tagalog region, or as the Chinese recorded: Empire of Luzon. Now if you are going to keep arguing about the International terminology outweighing the correct and accurate name of the writing script, then you should know that the term Baybayin was actually coined by the Spanish conquerors. At the end, Baybayin still is the correct term because it has always been the International terminology for the Baybayin FAMILY. 222.127.223.70 (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I would agree for the most part with Evertype, though I think at some time in the future, when published evidence becomes available, it would be preferable to rename the article "Philippine script" given the evidence that the Tagbanwa and Mangyan versions are for the most part angular, carved versions of the Doctrina Christiana letters and handwriting samples from the early 1600s. In the meantime, I think it's worth pointing out that exclusive use of the Tagalog terms "baybayin" and "kudlit" has the same effect as using the name "Tagalog script": it marginalises other terms such as the Bikol equivalents "basahan" and "kahulo'an". That said, the preponderance of the evidence does seem to point to the script first being adopted via Manila, the Tagalog-speaking main port of Luzon. Kiwehtin (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Wrong Transcription

The sample transcription of "Wikipedia" into Baybayin is wrong. It reads: "Wi Ki Pi Di A" with a glottal stop on the final syllable "A". The final syllable ought to be "Ya". Boreanesia 22:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Tagalog script

The name Tagalog script is not' confined to the Unicode standard; it is quite common in materials in English and other languages (like Dutch for instance). In my opinion it is a more useful name than Baybayin or Alibata, both of which are "generic" terms which may have meaning to local speakers but have little international utility. The fact that the former means 'spelling' and the latter just 'alphabet' shows that they are generic terms. Whether the script is used for languages other than Tagalog is irrelevant; the Arabic script is used for Arabic, Persian, Urdu, Sindhi, Pashto, and many other languages. I find the reversion of my recent edit inappropriate, but thought I had better begin the discussion here. -- Evertype·✆ 18:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The languages used for a script is relevant since they show the script's history. I think the name Tagalog script is inaccurate since it might give the wrong impression that this script originated from Tagalog speakers. Unlike with the Arabic script and the Latin alphabet, both of which have evidence that suggest that they originated from Arabic speakers and Latin speakers respectively, there is no evidence that suggest that Baybayin originated from Tagalog speakers. For all we know the script might have originated from speakers of the Kinaray-a language. 23prootie 14:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Ooops! I found a site that implies a Tagalog origin [1], but I guess to be fair to the other languges, I think the name should stay.23prootie 17:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said, the usual name for this script is Tagalog. I believe we should move this to Tagalog script; this term is not inaccurate. You have seen that it was first devised for that language; "fairness" to the other languages really isn't relevant. The most common English name should be preferred, not words in another language which mean 'spelling' or 'alphabet'. Can we agree? If not, I can propose the move and let the community decide. -- Evertype·✆ 10:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, as in my comment above, I mostly agree with Evertype, though most mentions I have seen in the literature seem to refer to the script(s) of the Philippines rather than Tagalog script as such. I should try tabulating this at some point. Bikol "basahan" 'reading' is as valid a term as Tagalog "baybayin" 'spelling' or in a more basic sense, 'setting out in sequence' and both are, as Evertype points out for the specifically Tagalog term, generic words (which apply to any script that has been used by people in the Philippines) and not a clear description of the script as such. A similar argument can be made against the often seen "Lontara" as a name for Buginese script: it just means 'palm leaf', on which Buginese and Makassarese documents were written before the advent of European paper. Kiwehtin (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Then let's use Alibata because that is the term that everyone recognizes and is officially being taught in schools, universities and written in text books. Alibata unifies all. My vote goes to Alibata going by your and Evertype's argument. 222.127.223.70 (talk) 00:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

SVG images

I made svg versions of the Baybayin letters. Let me know if they can be used in the article Commons:Category:Baybayin_letters

Syllabary, not Alphabet

This is not an area of expertise for me, but isn't Baybayin properly categorized as a Syllabary, not an Alphabet? Ditto Vatteluttu, which this article (mis?)categorizes as an alphabet. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Its basic structural principles are the same as those of Indic scripts such as Devanagari, which are usually considered alphabets. To see what an undisputed syllabary looks like, go to katakana/hiragana. -- AnonMoos (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I had Hiragana and Katakana in mind as I wrote that. As I understand it, Baybayin, like both Hiragana and Katakana, uses each symbol to represent a spoken syllable rather than to represent an alphabetic letter as do, e.g., the English, Devanagari, Hangul Cryllic alphabets. My point was not related to the physical appearance of the symbols, it was whether individual symbols represent a syllable, as in a Syllabary or a letter, as in an Alphabet. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not really the case. In Indic-style alphabets (including Baybayin), the three syllables ta, te, and to will be written the same, except for different diacritics modifying the main symbol. In Japanese syllabaries, the three syllables ta, te, and to will be written with three completely distinct and separate symbols without any systematic resemblance. In a Japanese syllable-sign, there will be no part of the visual sign which can be identified as symbolizing the consonant sound, and no part of the visual sign which can be identified as symbolizing the following vowel sound. Instead the sign as an unanalyzable whole symbolizes the combination of consonant+vowel.

This distinction may not at first seem overwhelmingly important, but actually it's a difference in the basic nature of the two writing systems... AnonMoos (talk) 23:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I just took a look at Scott, William Henry (1984), "Chapter 2. Linguistics and Paleography", Prehispanic Source Materials for the study of Philippine History, New Day Publishers, ISBN 971-10-0226-4, http://books.google.com/books?id=bR2XAQAACAAJ , which I happen to have handy. Scott says on pages 57-58 that babayin is one of about a dozen indigenous alphabets (he uses that word) which are derived from ancient India and share the characteristic of the Sanskrit alphabet (that link redirects to Sanskrit -- an article is needed there) that any consonant is pronounced with the vowel a following it, with diacritical marks being added to express other vowels. Scott's footnote 26 on page 146 says, "Since the procedure is called an alphabet when writing in Sanskrit, I am calling the baybayin an alphabet too, rather than a "syllabary". -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there isn't really any "Sanskrit alphabet" as such -- traditionally, Sanskrit was written with different local scripts in each of the different regions of India. Non-Indians learning Sanskrit usually encounter it in the Devanagari script (which is the local alphabet for Hindi). AnonMoos (talk) 12:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article "Abugida," where the Indic scripts are described as "abugidas" or "alphasyllabaries" -- neither alphabets nor syllabaries (in the hiragana or katakana sense)112.200.177.120 (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)dnong

No reason to delete the script examples

JL09 has twice deleted the re-spellings in the Tagalog script. Given the fact that this article is ABOUT the script, there seems little reason to support his deletions. -- Evertype·✆ 19:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Changes need to bring this article up to "Good" quality

This article is rated as Start quality for both WikiProject Writing Systems and WikiProject Tambayan Philippines (see the top of this page). Many of the claims are unsubstantiated (and unsupported by most primary sources I am aware of) and most of the sources referred to are not primary, published sources whose claims have been subject to expert review. Other problems that keep this article two ranks below "Good" quality are the uneven, non-encyclopedic quality of the writing, and the lack of many important points that should be dealt with in an article on a writing system.

Examples of unsubstantiated claims:

1. The name. "Philippine script(s)", "Tagalog script", "Alibata", "Baybayin" and "Basahan" have all appeared in the literature. The etymologies for these terms should be explained clearly, including the earliest etymologies for "baybayin", before it came to have the meaning "spelling".

2. "Some have attributed it the name Alibata, but this name is incorrect."

The second part of this statement is an opinion, not a fact. A factual statement would simply mention that the name is not historically connected to this script, but instead refers to the first three letters of the current order of letters in the Arabic script.

The first part is a generic statement that avoids stating exactly who attributed the name Alibata to the script. A well-researched entry would of course attribute the statement directly to the primary source: Paul Verzosa in his "Pambangsang Wika ng Pilipinas".

3. The origin of the script. It is repeatedly stated as fact that the script is an offshoot of Kawi script. To my knowledge, at least six origin theories of near equal plausibility have been proposed in the published literature alone. No theory yet published has come close to making a good case for the likely origin of the script: as a result, no consensus exists on the origins of the script.

4. The earliest date at which the script was used. There are two claims in this article: (1) It "is believed to have been in use as early as the 14th century" and (2) "by at least the 1200s or 1300s, the characters found in Baybayin and related scripts came to be in regular use".

Neither of these is substantiated, and the only I am aware of from published sources comes from eyewitness accounts by early explorers that attest to its use in the early 1500s.

5. That "an earthenware burial jar found in Batangas" (commonly known as the "Calatagan Pot" uses Baybayin. It is clear that many of the characters inscribed around the neck of the pot are recognisable as being from the script, but it is not established whether the artifact is authentic, nor to my knowledge at least, whether the approximate date of the artifact has in fact been established. There are major difficulties with the way the characters are written on the artifact, and the lack of any obvious reading for the characters, that lead to suspicions about its authenticity. It cannot at this point be used as evidence for when the script might have been used prior to the first datable observations by early explorers.

6. "Kawi was also used in the Philippines on official documents such as the Laguna Copperplate Inscription" and similarly, "Kawi most likely continued to be used for official documents and writings by the ruling class in the Pre-Hispanic Philippines.". The LCI is the sole document yet known that is written in Kawi script and appears to originate in the Philippines. It is a reasonable guess that other documents (official or otherwise) may well also have been produced around that time, but their existence has not been established and cannot be claimed as fact unless there is some primary source that I am currently unaware of that establishes their existence. It is inappropriate to an encyclopedic article to insert a conjecture like that given in the second quote unless it is cited and attributed to a primary source.

7. With respect to Kawi and Baybayin, "many historians believe that they were used alongside each other". I have not, in my extensive consultation of primary sources, yet come across a single publication that makes this claim. The only evidence I am aware of for Kawi in the Philippines comes from the Laguna Copperplate Inscription, which bears a date equivalent to the year 900 CE, and an inscription on a rhinoceros horn seal (undated) from Butuan (see point below).

8. Again, with respect to Kawi and Baybayin, "Baybayin was simpler and easier to learn, but Kawi was more advanced and better suited for concise writing". This quote is lifted, word for word and without attribution, directly from Paul Morrow's Baybayin site ([2]), which itself is not a primary source. The statement as such is an opinion: no criteria are proposed for why Baybayin would be "simpler and easier to learn" nor why Kawi would be "more advanced and better suited for concise writing". An encyclopedic article must limit itself to stating the facts about the structure of each script and what in what ways it represents or fails to represent aspects of the phonological structure of the spoken languages it is used to write.

9. "The [vowel] mark is called a kudlit." No source is given for this. It is available, among other places at Paul Morrow's site, a secondary source; there, he also refers to the Bikol term kahulowan [sic] (and gives primary references substantiating this fact and all others he places on his site).

10. "This method, however, was particularly difficult for the Spanish priests who were translating books into the native language." If this is referred to as fact somewhere in the primary literature, the source needs to be documented.

11. "Baybayin historically was used in Tagalog and to a lesser extent Kapampangan speaking areas" and "Its use was mainly restricted to those areas, though many incorrectly claim that it was used by a wider range Filipino ethnolinguistic groups, which actually used closely related (yet still distinct) writing systems such as Hanunóo, Buhid, and Tagbanwa." The two statements in general are not substantiated; the second statement is an opinion, not a fact. Primary published sources and, indeed, secondary sources on the web, contain numerous citations from early witnesses of the script's use throughout Luzon, the Visayas, and Mindanao. If the question whether Tagbanuwa and Mangyan scripts are actually distinct or varieties of a single Philippine script has actually been demonstrated in the published literature, as opposed to being a simple conventional opinion, the relevant source (if it exists) should be cited for the specific supporting details.

12. "The only Pre-Hispanic script that can be applied on a national level would be Kawi." This is an opinion, unsubstantiated, and relies on previous unsubstantiated opinions for its support. See points 6, 7 and 11.

13. That the rhinoceros horn seal found in Butuan is written partly in Kawi - with vowel marks worn off -, and in Baybayin - again with vowel marks worn off. This is unsupported. It originates in a conjecture on Hector Santos' "A Philippine Leaf" website ([www.bibingka.com/dahon/mystery/seal.htm]) that is dressed up here as fact. I have not yet found any primary sources that deal specifically with the reading of the inscription on the seal; however, Santos' citation of the opinion of Antoon Postma (who published the academic paper transcribing and translating the Laguna Copperplate Inscription) can be taken as a citation of expert opinion. Careful comparison with modern-day Kawi-based Javanese/Balinese and Sundanese scripts and numerous samples of Kawi variants in Holle's _Tabel van Oud- en Nieuw-Indische Alphabetten_ shows that all the characters are clearly Kawi (including the U vowel marker, the subscript conjunct B and the final curling Virama sign (which Postma in fact imported into the Hanuno'o variety of Philippine script as the "Pamudpód"). The only ambiguous character in Postma's opinion- as alluded to in Santos' citation - is the initial one, most likely B but possibly P, and there exists a slight possibility that the final consonant is D rather than N. The claim given here is unsubstantiated and, since no primary source appears to exist, unsubstantiable.

14. "The Laguna Copperplate Inscription, written using the Kawi script in Old Tagalog, with heavy Old Javanese, Old Malay and Sanskrit influence". This is unsubstantiated. The only primary source extant is Postma's original article, which shows pretty clearly that the first segment of the inscription is in Sanskrit, the main body in Old Malay with Sanskrit loanwords and several words atypical of Malay which could be either Old Javanese OR Old Tagalog. Postma's well-documented conclusions have not been challenged in the published literature and no plausible arguments have been published in any primary source that would challenge Postma's clearly supported demonstration that the language of the body of the text is Old Malay.

The article also needs more attention to some specific points. A summary of important areas to cover is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Writing_systems. Several of these points need much more attention, including:

1. The various orders for the letters, beginning with the first attested order found in the Doctrina Christiana, then the "a ba ca da" order used by Spanish observers, based on the order of the Latin alphabet equivalents of the Philippine letters.

2. A well-organised chart, with the consonants and diacritics clearly explained.

3. Clear explanations of the names for the script, the letters, and the diacritics in the languages for which sources exist.

4. Specific information about different styles. Most important here is a description of the earliest attestation of the script, which appears in the _Doctrina Christiana_ (1593), then a comparison with the handwriting variants found in two land deeds reproduced in Villamor's _La Antigua Escritura Filipina_ as well as signatures reproduced in the same source, in Potet's "La pétition tagale 'Caming manga alipin'" and in Scott's _Prehispanic Source Materials for the Study of Philippine History_, and a comparison with modern bamboo handwriting variants from Mindoro and Palawan. The development of printing typefaces, starting with the _Doctrina_ characters and Lopez' reinterpretation thereof, is important due to differences with authentic examples of handwriting. The near exclusive attention paid to the printing variants to the total exclusion of handwriting (which are the basic form in any script) creates a misleading impression that Mangyan and Tagbanuwa variants are distinct from the usual Luzon-Bisayas letter forms. This leads to the current opinion (likely erroneous) that the Mangyan and Tagbanuwa variants are separate scripts.

5. Of secondary interest, but nonetheless worth discussing separately under "Usage", is the modern day development of new typefaces as part of a cultural revival of the script.

6. It would be useful - again under "Usage" - to discuss various proposals that have been put forth to reform the script, from Lopez' addition of a Virama (and Postma's similar, more recent addition to the Hanuno'o variety of the script) through Verzosa's borrowing of the Batak/Bugis R letter to Bayani de Mendoza's more recent and ambitious additions to the script.

7. For the discussion of the origins and history of the script to be of any quality, it must be completely rewritten, citing all the primary sources (which are easily available) with their diversity of opinions on likely possible origins for the script. (To list them: Kawi, Old Assamese pre-Nagari script introduced via Bengal, an indigenous origin, an ultimate origin in old Sumatran "Malay" scripts, the Buginese and/or Makassarese scripts of Sulawesi, early Cham script from Champa in what is now southern Vietnam and southeastern Cambodia.) In addition, any claims regarding the use of Kawi must be limited to the two known and substantiated examples: the Laguna Copperplate Inscription and the rhinoceros horn seal from Butuan. None of the other claims regarding Kawi in the current version can be substantiated in any way on the basis of the existing literature.

8. The fact that the two samples of writing in the script are both in Tagalog, but not identified as such. They could be supplemented with or replaced by actual excerpts from the 1593 _Doctrina Christiana_ and one of (1613 and 1615) land deeds published in Villamor (cited above).

9. The introduction should distinguish the two main ways the script can be written: with and without the Virama. The transcriptions can be quite different depending on the choice made and neither can be claimed to be the only legitimate or authentic system. (See point 6 above).

10. Accurate IPA representations should be added for the pronunciation of each Tagalog or Bikol term (and any others that might be added from other languages later on). This includes IPA transcriptions for the terms "baybayín", "basahan", "alîbatá", "titik", "guhit", "kudlít" and "kahulo'an".

Much work remains to be done (and much damage undone) to bring this article up to the level of even a "Good" rating. My first impulse is to start from scratch and write a completely new article, which should be under a more accurately descriptive name in any case. However, that would lead to conflict with the existing article. I would appreciate feedback from other users on ways we can bring the quality of the article in line with the Wikipedia guidelines. Although given enough time and patience, I could re-edit the whole existing article with this aim in mind, it would be preferable if a group of us could do so, consulting the reputable sources that are widely available and improving the quality of the claims made here on that basis.

I would appreciate feedback on this before I try to undertake the task myself. (A note: I have not given full references for sources at this point, my intent being to point out the weaknesses of the current content of the article rather than to begin the task of writing up and documenting actual admissible content. Kiwehtin (talk) 00:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Well I've given it an initial going-over, but there's still a long way to go. I removed many of the spurious claims from the text, and tried to create slightly better sections and at least begin the process of fixing this up. 12.172.207.3 (talk) 18:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

--- I agree with many points by Kiwehtin on the doubtful quality of the article, but removing such a widely-known example such as the "Calatagan Pot" which is still in the Philippine National Museum, still considered a national treasure and currently being given contemporary consideration by serious scholars (anthropologists, archeologists etc.) working in the field in a scientific and rigorous way is unwarranted. To eliminate this would be to claim "original research" that debunks the work of specialists. But where has this "original research" been published? Wiki is not a venue for this as we all know. Wiki is just a venue for reporting the history and the state of the art of the topic and its sources must stay close to academic works in academic publications in the Philippines or ,this article in particular, risks becoming the domain of cranks (of which this field is rife). Refereed books and journal articles published in the Philippines and possibly elsewhere (there are very few non-Philippine studies on baybayin which actually contribute anything new to the discussion probably due to the lack of knowledge of the writers on Philippine languages) constitutes the only rational criterion for the "actual admissible content" of this article.

Response to the previous unsigned posting

The anonymous contributor of the previous discussion entry (recorded as IP address 119.230.13.87) has misunderstood my point with regard to the "Calatagan Pot". I did not advocate removing any reference to the inscription. I simply pointed out the problems with this pot and their implications for what can be claimed about Baybayin. There have been four attempts (to my knowledge) at assigning values to the characters on the pot since the 1970s (Francisco's Philippine Palaeography, Potet's 1983 PhD thesis Morphologie du Philippin, Guillermo and Paluga's 2008/2009 "Barang King Banga: Isang eksperimental na pagbasang Bisaya sa inskripsyon sa Banga ng Calatagan" and Oropilla y Fortich's (2010?) Deciphered Secrets: The Calatagan Pot Inscription as well as three attempts to assign a meaningful reading to the sequence of characters on the pot (Francisco, Guillermo-Paluga, Oropilla, and the reading allegedly revealed in seance by the sculptor Tolentino).

Because of the ambiguity of the inscribed characters, the direction in which the sequence may be intended to be read, and the apparent 180º upside-down rotation of many of the characters contributing to the unclearness of possible readings, there is only partial agreement between those who have attempted to figure out the inscription. This, the fact that there is no clear and plausible dating for the pot (see Francisco on this), and the fact that it was sold to archaeologists by treasure hunters in the area rather than excavated under controlled conditions, precludes any claim that this is established as an early Baybayin artefact. It can be discussed as an example of a mysterious item of unknown date bearing inscriptions that resemble Baybayin to a greater or lesser degree, with a discussion of the scholarly conclusions and disagreements surrounding the item, but no more can be said about it in connection with Baybayin. Doing this is not attempting "new original research" nor attempting to debunk the work of those who have attempted to make some sense of the artefact.

The anonymous poster appears unfamiliar with the fairly extensive original literature on Baybayin. Most of the earlier work was written by authors from Spain (in particular, example "alphabets" for different regions), France, Germany and by the Dutch linguist Hendrik Kern, who originated the Kawi origin theory. More recently, extensive and well-documented studies were written by the Spaniard Marcilla y Martin (Estudio de los antiguos alfabetos filipinos, 1895), the Austrians (Germans?) Mayer, Schadenberg and Foy ("Die Mangianenschrift von Mindoro", 1895); and in the Philippines, Ignacio Villamor's 1922 La antigua escritura filipina/The Ancient Filipino Writing and Alberto Santamaría's 1938 "El 'Baybayin' en el archivo de Santo Tomás" are the first and highly important introductions to actual Baybayin handwriting as opposed to printed typefaces and the early second hand sample "alphabets" reproduced with greater or lesser accuracy. The most important and extensive example of early Baybayin was edited and published in 1947 by the American Edwin Wolf: Doctrina Christiana. The First Book Printed in the Philippines.

These publications have been supplemented by numerous samples of Baybayin handwriting from other archival sources gathered and distributed informally by Antoon Postma over the past decades, but as yet unpublished, and the French Philippinologist Potet's 1987 "La pétition tagale Caming manga alipin" (and Potet's evaluations and decipherments of many of Postma's samples). Important work on Mangyan script was published both by Postma (a Dutch-Filipino dual national) and before him, the Americans Kroeber and Gardner. More recent important work on understanding the nature and origins of Baybayin appears in the 1984 Prehispanic Source Materials for the Study of Philippine History by William Scott, an American working in the Philippines, and yet more recently the well documented though somewhat inconclusive 1993 "On the Possible Cham Origin of the Philippine Scripts" was written by the Australian Geoff Wade. And of course, the most important recent overview of Baybayin is the carefully documented and well written Internet website maintained by Paul Morrow in Winnipeg, Canada.

Much of the remaining work on Baybayin originating in the Philippines during the past century or so has been devoted to proposals for expanding and adapting the script for writing the modern languages of the Philippines, with their heavy influence from Spanish and English. This includes Villamor, Verzosa's Pambansang Titik ng Pilipinas, Mendoza de Leon's 1992 Baybayin. The Ancient Script of the Philippines and Pangilinan's 2010 modern reconstruction of a Kapampangan version of Baybayin, "Assessing the current status of the Kapampangan 'pre-Hispanic' script". Cervo's 1978/1982 Another Look at Tagalog speculates about possible origins of the shapes of Baybayin letters in movements of the mouth and jaw, but shows an embarrassing ignorance of even the most basic concepts of articulatory phonetics and cannot be considered scientific literature; similar criticisms apply to the speculations made therein about the origins of Tagalog vocabulary.

I disagree strongly with the previous commenter's claim that only work from the Philippines should be considered as reliable or as having made worthwhile contributions to our knowledge about the script. The scientific value of a piece of work depends not on who authors it or where it was authored, but on the soundness of the factual evidence presented and the logical quality of the arguments. That is all. As is true for work in all areas of science, much of the valuable work on this script has been published outside the Philippines and that a publication originates inside the Philippines is no guarantee of its quality. Almost all the high quality published sources I have mentioned above are easily available either online or through libraries and should be consulted and cited in any well written Wikipedia entry on Baybayin. 65.94.168.242 (talk) 00:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You write too long, always remember it is very rare that someone will read long comments. If it was an encyclopedic article they will read. Back on topic, call it Baybayin Family to end the debate. As far as current research, history, discoveries, and understanding are concerned, the term Baybayin is the same as the term Sanskrit. The writing script have different local/regional variations but are generally called as Sanskrit. Baybayin is just that - a (family) writing script. In Unicode, it is called Tagalog and not Baybayin because the group that submitted it also submitted scripts for Hanunoo, Buhid, and Tagbanwa. It is only proper and correct to use Tagalog and not Baybayin to avoid confusion and redundancy.

Because the Baybayin scripts in Unicode are of the variation-level, we can later submit sulat Kapampangan and sulat Bisaya too. Baybayin is the correct and most accurate term to use, it refers to the family of scripts used within the Philippine Islands. All variations originated from the Tagalog variation (parent). The Spanish conquerors of the Philippines actually was the one who coined the term Baybayin.

Also, should we wait for someone to write a new book based on the latest findings? Wikipedia has positioned itself to be the "authority" in research which it should not be. Keeping the information overtly too restricted to existing and too old, not updated sources will only add to the growing misinformation and confusion about Baybayin. Is not Wikipedia aiming to help and provide the most accurate and updated information?

Use Baybayin Family as the article title and URL, end this name debate and let's go back to building the article. 222.127.223.70 (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The previous comment makes several incorrect statements about Baybayin's status as a script, the origin of its name, and what "Sanskrit" refers to. Baybayin is a single script, like Latin, Arabic or Devanagari in all their variations are single scripts. It is most definitely not a group or family of scripts; no separate "Sulat Bisaya" ever existed, and authentic Kapampangan script was merely the most notable regional variant of Baybayin. There were no special regional variations despite the false impression given by inaccurately wirtten samples of Baybayin from various regions as written by foreigners not used to writing the letters correctly. Scott, Villamor and especially Santamaría have shown clearly that the handwriting of different people in the same region, even from the same document, shows moer differences than the so-called "regional scripts" written in distorted handwriting by foreigners. Modern "Kulitan" or "Súlat Kapampangan" is the recent invention of one person who took a 19th century French visitor's interpretation of Baybayin letters as written in an unknown source or sources from Pampanga, and combined these with a structure derived from a combination of Kawi and Korean Han'gul. It is a modern constructed script with no relation to how it was actually written when it was used as part of daily life. The name Baybayin originated with Tagalog speakers, not the Spanish, who at first just called it "sus letras" (their letters). Baybayin comes from a word that originally meant to put things in a sequence or a particular order. Sanskrit is a language, not a script or group of scripts. All these facts can be checked in the existing literature. Anyone who wants to write an accurate article should consult at the very least Paul Morrow's web site "Ang Baybayin", Santamaría's "El "Baybayin" en el archivo de Santo Tomas", Villamor's "The Old Philippine Writing/La Antigua Escritura Filipina", and Marcilla y Martín's "Estudio de los Antiguos Alfabetos Filipinos". Kiwehtin (talk) 04:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Problems with opening section

The following is an extract from the first section:

Some have attributed it the name Alibata,[3] but this name is incorrect. (The term "Alibata" was coined by Paul Rodríguez Verzosa after the arrangement of letters of the Arabic alphabet[4] alif, ba, ta (alibata), “f” having been eliminated for euphony's sake." ) Verzosa's reasoning for creating this word was unfounded because no evidence of the Baybayin was ever found in that part of the Philippines and it has absolutely no relationship to the Arabic language. Furthermore, no ancient script native to Southeast Asia followed the Arabic arrangement of letters, and regardless of Verzosa's connection to the word alibata, its absence from all historical records indicates that it is a totally modern creation. The present author does not use this word in reference to any ancient Philippine script.

The style of the writing, and especially the final sentence, gives me the very strong impression that this is copied directly from a book. As a bit of googling shows, everything from "Verzosa's reasoning" is copied directly from http://www.mts.net/~pmorrow/bayeng1.htm, which is blatant copyvio. I am therefore removing it.

There's also a broken quote (a closing quote but no opening quote), and the information about creation of "alibata" seems to me to be in the wrong place (I'd have moved it even if it wasn't copyvio). Finally, "this name is incorrect" seems dodgy (though I don't have any knowledge of the subject) because if any significant use is made of it, it's a name. Whether or not it's indigenous, traditional, approved by scholars or anything else is largely irrelevant, as long as it's in use. Obviously if not then it doesn't need to be there, but someone's provided a source that looks okay at a glance. -- Shimmin Beg (talk) 21:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Tagalog "Baybayin" is NOT KAPAMPANGAN, nor is it the other scripts

Hey "Kiwehtin", if you don't mind, educate yourself first before reversing my edits, as well as read what I wrote in the history, it isn't Kapampangan. If you want the Kapampangan script, create an article on the script referred to as "Kulitan"(not to be confused with the tagalog term). As well as for the other ethnic group's respective scripts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.82.28 (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)