Talk:Spanish language in the Philippines

Archive list

• Talk:Spanish in the Philippines/Arcives:From Circulo
• 2004-2008 Archive

Spanish as "the original national language"

The lead sentence of this article says, "Spanish was the first official language of the Philippines and the country's original national language." I am unable to verify that Spanish was the country's original national language. Indeed, the Malolos constitution which is used to support the assertion that Spanish was the first official language says, "ART. 93. The use of languages spoken in the Philippines is optional. It can only be regulated by law, and solely as to the acts of public authority and judicial affairs." Barring the appearance of cite-supported information to the contrary, I propose to remove the assertion that Spanish was the original national language of the Philippines. I'm traveling at the moment but I'll look for some relevant citeable material myself when able -- probably next week. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Checked both the Biac-na-Bato and Malolos Constitutions. Neither proclaimed Spanish as the national language. --Pare Mo (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do not change or twist the facts around to suit your own interpretation. First, Spanish was the sole official lanaguage of the first Philippine Republic, meaning the Philippine's first official language as an independent state. It was also the lingua franca or common platform of communication for Filipinos of different linguistic backgrounds during the colonial period. It was therefore he first "national language" whether you consider the existence of a Philippine nation before or after the proclamation of the First Philippine Republic.

In your quote of Art. 93 of the Malolos Constitution, you also fail to include the last sentence which reads "... For these [official] acts the Spanish language will be used in the meantime". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.221.52.70 (talk) 15:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do not revert the above sentence unless you have reliable references about the contrary. Spanish was the original language of the Philippines because before Spanish colonization there was no Philippine Nation. It was also the language used by Filipinos who spoke different dialects, to be able to communicate with each other. Finally, it was the National Language of the First Philippine Republic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.221.52.70 (talk) 12:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"National language" ≠ "official language". See {{Languages of the Philippines}}. Official and national languages are distinct from one another. –Howard the Duck 11:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone anonymously pointed out above that my quote from the Malolos Constitution was incomplete. OK, quoted completely, and in the original Spanish, Article 93 says

"Artículo 93.° El empleo de las lenguas usadas en Filipinas es potestativo. No puede regularse sino por la ley y solamente para los actos de la autoridad pública y los asuntos judiciales. Para estos actos se usará por ahora la lengua castellana."

The approved English translation of that is

"Article 93. The use of languages spoken in the Philippines shall be optional. Their use cannot be regulated except by virtue of law, and solely for acts of public authority and in the courts. For these acts the Spanish language may be used in the meantime."

As I read that, the initial two sentences (which I originally requoted) say that use of language is optional, but that official use can be regulated by law. The third sentence (which I previously omitted, and which should be read in the context established by the first two sentences) says that in the interim period until laws regulating language use for acts of public authority and in the courts are promulgated, the Spanish language is permitted to be used for these official purposes. As I read that, the third sentence has no value in support of assertions outside of the context established by the first two sentences.

Looking at this article again, I see that it cites this paper in a couple of places. Let me quote a bit from pages 26 and 27 of that paper:

Historical development of the policies and practices

The historical development of the policies is best traced by a quick glance across time in the history of the Philippines.

The Spanish Crown, in numerous directives to the Viceroy of Mexico (which then acted as a conduit of governance towards the Governor General of the Philippines), kept mandating the teaching of the Spanish language to the local residents, seemingly without too much success in the Philippines because of the lack of a concrete programme of instruction (until the last quarter of the nineteenth century when a series of parish-related schools was established after the Royal Decree of l863 and when two schools, one in Manila for men, the other one in Naga for women, were founded to train teachers for Spanish). The absence of Spanish teachers who could monitor the programme and act as models is probably the main reason for the lack of success. The only Spaniard living in the rural and semi-urbanised areas was the religious pastor who learned local languages rather than trying to teach the locals his own native language (Spanish). Later, during the period of intense nationalism in the last quarter of the nineteenth century (Schumacher, 1973), friars were accused of trying to hold back the teaching of Spanish from the locals out of fear of their imbibing liberal ideas from Spain and to prevent possible subversion. To a certain extent, this was true, although how widespread this belief was among the friars needs further analysis since the more convincing reason was that there was no teaching programme nor were there sufficient teachers. At the end of the Spanish Period, the fluent male speakers were former students of the Ateneo, San Juan de Letran, the Universidad de Santo Tomas, and the fluent women were the former students of the Beaterios run by the nuns.

The l896 Biak-na-Bato Constitution and the l898 Malolos Constitution recognised the need to cultivate the local languages, but did not say anything about a national language; rather, de facto these documents recognised the continuing use of Spanish in Philippine life and legislation.

That seems to say that Spanish wasn't widely spoken in the Philippines until sometime after 1863. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Please note that your English transalation of Article 93 is incorrect. The Article does not say "Spanish may be used", or "is permitted to be used", but Spanish "will be used" for these public acts.

Apart from this being completely factual (go to any language translation site) it is also common sense. Spanish was the lingua franca of the Philippines and spoken by the majority of the middle classes (professionals, doctors, journalists, teachers, lawyers, merchants etc). What other language could have been used for public acts except Spanish? Why on earth would Spanish be simply "permitted"? It had to be used, it was the only choice.

The translation is not only flawed, but intentionally flawed. It attempts to lessen the importance of Spanish as the only official language of the Philippines, in the same way that many Philippine history books in English criticize anything Spanish in Philippine history, culture or identity. Enough of this Philippine version of the Black Legend propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.221.52.69 (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the translation I provided above, it is not "my" translation. I don't speak Spanish. Even if I did speak Spanish, providing my own translation version would probably be improper original research. The translation came from

• 1899 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, Corpus Juris, http://www.thecorpusjuris.com/laws/constitutions/8-philippineconstitutions/42-1899-constitution.html 

(an online provider of online legal research materials and tools), which says of it: "This page contains the approved translation of the Malolos Constitution." (no, I don't know who the purported approving authority might be). The same translation can be found at

• Antonio L. Rappa; Lionel Wee (2006), Language Policy and Modernity in Southeast Asia: Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand (illustrated ed.), Springer, p. 67, http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=KXQTIl2eox4C , ISBN 1402045107, ISBN 9781402045103.

and at

• Damon L. Woods (2005), The Philippines: A Global Studies Handbook (illustrated ed.), ABC-CLIO, p. 218, http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=2Z-n_kDTxf0C , ISBN 1851096752, ISBN 9781851096756.

and at

• 1899 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (MALOLOS CONVENTION, Arellano Law Foundation: The LawPhil Project, http://www.lawphil.net/consti/consmalo.html 

and in many other sources. If this version of the translation is flawed (intentionally or not), that flaw was not contrived by me.

I do see that another source

• Kalaw, Maximo Manguiat (1921, 2007), The Present Government of the Philippines, Oriental commercial, p. 443, ISBN 1406746363, http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=0_62j7vjAqsC  (Note: 1. The book cover incorrectly lists author as "Maximo M Lalaw", 2. Originally published in 1921 by The McCullough Printing Co., Manila

gives this translation

ART.93 The use of the languages spoken in the Philippines is optional. It can only be regulated by law, and solely as to the acts of public authority and judicial affairs. For the purpose of these acts shall be used at present the Castillian language.

I haven't found another source giving that version of the translation.

I also see this. The source does not qualify under Wikipedia:Reliable sources guidelines, but the content is interesting. A citeable reliable source for the same material probably does exist. It contains a purported requote of the closing address to the Philippine Assembly, an address titled titled "The unity of the Filipino people", given on the night of February 11, 1913 by Honorable Sergio Osmeña. It is in Spanish, a language which I do not understand. Using Google language tools to get a rough translation, I see that it appears to argue for the use of English as an official language. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

(additional info) The Malolos Constitution article mentions another source -- one which looks significant. It appears that I was the editor who introduced that source to the article back in May of 2008. This appears to be the translator who is the creator of the "may be used in the meantime" translation:

• Guevara, Sulpico, ed. (2005), "The Malolos Constitution (English translation)", The laws of the first Philippine Republic (the laws of Malolos) 1898-1899., Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Library (published 1972), http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=philamer&cc=philamer&idno=aab1246.0001.001&frm=frameset&view=image&seq=122, retrieved 2009-01-26 . (English translation by Sulpicio Guevara. Originally published by the National Historical Commission, Manila, 1972.).

From that source, "Translation by the author from original Spanish text." The title page identifies the compiler and editor as Sulpico Guevara A.B., LL.B., LL.M.; Division of Research and Law Reform, University of the Philippines Law Center. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) All through this, I've had a feeling of Déjà vu. Well, it seems it was more than a feeling, it was a fuzzy recollection of having been down this road previously (about a year ago, actually, the #Spanish as the first official language section above.

I've locate3d a couple of new sources: Publishing the "may be used in the meantime" translation

• Tupaz, Antonio R. (2005), Constitutional Law Reviewer (Problems and Answers), ISBN 971-584-393-X  (Author is described as of the publication date as Dean of the College of Law, University of the East. With a forward by Hilario G. Davide Jr. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court).

I've now come across a third translation, in

• Rodriguez, Rufus Bautista (1997), "The 1899 'Malolos' Constitution", Constitutionalism in the Philippines: With Complete Texts of the 1987 Constitution and Other Previous Organic Acts and Constitutions, Rex Bookstore, Inc., p. 130, http://books.google.com/books?id=l8alSTTrk48C&pg=PA117 , ISBN 9712321932, ISBN 9789712321931.

ART.93 The use of the languages spoken in the Philippines is optional. It can only be regulated by law, and solely as regards acts of public authority and judicial affairs. For these acts, the Spanish language shall be used for the present.

This translation is similar to the translation quoted above from Kalaw 1927, p. 443, but it is not identical. So, at this point, we have three different English translations. At this point I am at a loss about where to go from here. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Boracay Bill, it seems you did a lot of research on Article 93 of the Malolos Constitution. The fact is that "Para estos actos se usará por ahora la lengua castellana" translates as "For these acts the Spanish (Castilian) language will be used" or "shall be used". I don't know if some of the translations are intentionally wrong, but the sentence definitely does not say "may be used". However, I could see why in the early years of American administration of the Philippines, the authorities would prefer to translate it as "may". JCRB (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, it appears to me that the "may be used in the meantime" translation given in (Guevara 2005) originated in when it was originally published in 1972 by the National Historical Institute (Philippines) (70+ years after the early years of the American administration, that is). AFAICT, that translation published in 1972 by the National historical Institute is the generally accepted translation, though some other translations do exist (I found and cited above isolated published sources for two others).

Also, please read Wikipedia's three core content policies:

• Wikipedia:Verification ("The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.")
• Wikipedia:Original research ("Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.")
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view ("Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors. For guidance on how to make an article conform to the neutral point of view, see the NPOV tutorial; for examples and explanations that illustrate key aspects of this policy, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ.:

-- Boracay Bill (talk) 07:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Verifiable, neutral and no original research

Boracay, I am not sure when the mistaken translation originated. I am just pointing out it is incorrect. Also, I am familiar with Wikipedia policies. Please see below:

• Verifiable: Here www.wordreference.com you can find the meaning of "se usará" (will be used), "por ahora" (for now) and "la lengua castellana" (the Castilian or Spanish language).
• Neutral: Providing information on Article 93 of Malolos is completely neutral. So is revealing that the translation "may be used" is flawed.
• No original research. I have provided a website that offers good translations (Spanish to English). That should be enough. JCRB (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

FWICS, the "may be" translation is the generally accepted one, the translation most often seen in published sources, dubbed the "official" translation by some sources. As I've said, I don't speak Spanish. I am not qualified to provide any sort of expert opinion on this. However two alternative translations which I have found in published sources, though they differ from one another, both do use the word "shall" instead of the word "may". You say that you have found reliable sources saying that the correct translation would be "shall". Considering WP:V ("... whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.") and WP:NPOV ("... representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources"), I think that it would be improper to eliminate the "may" translation from the article, replacing it with the "shall" translation. Considering the apparent predominence of the "may" translation in the sources I've looked at, it seems to me that this should remain the translation used by the article. Considering that some few sources do exist which use the "shall" translation, and considering that some langage-translation sources do exist which support the assertion that "shall" would be a more correct translation than "may", it would be appropriate for the article to provide cite-supported information that some alternative translations use "shall" rather than "may", and to provide explanatory information—perhaps in a footnote containing something like the following:

• Spanish (Guevara 2005, p. 101): "Para estos actos se usara por ahora la lengua Castellano."
• Generally accepted translation (Guevara 2005, p. 117 and many others, possibly with several cited individually): "For these acts the Spanish language may be used in the meantime."
• Kalaw 1927, p. 443: "For the purpose of these acts shall be used at present the Castillian language."
• Rodriguez 1997, p. 130: "for these acts, the Spanish language shall be used for the present."
• Automated translation by Google language tools: "For these events is now used by the Castilian tongue."

IMO, it would not be proper to eliminate mention of the "may" translation in favor of a "shall" translation just because some individual wikipedia editors hold the opinion that some particular "shall" translation is more correct than the apparently generally-accepted "may" translation. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Boracay. I appreciate your statement that you are not an expert in the Spanish language. I also appreciate your references about the correct translation. I do speak Spanish fluently and can modestly consider myself an expert in this language. This is really not an ideological, political or historical opinion. It is a clear simple fact that "se usará" transaltes as "will" or "shall be used", not "may be used". The latter indicates a possibility or permission, whereas the former makes an unconditional statement. Thus, regardless that some sources carry the "may" phrase, if all translation sites and dictionaries point to "shall" as the right translation, then we should be constructive and eliminate the "may" translation. However, I would be happy to add a note that says:

For some undetermined reason, some sources translate this sentence as "may be used", instead of "shall be used" which is the correct translation according to all dictionaries consulted. JCRB (talk) 15:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The lead sentence of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight says, "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." As far as I can tell, the "may be used" translation has much more prominence in published sources than do the several different "shall be used" translations. That translation is published by the National Historical Commission of the Philippines seems to have been produced by that organization.

The lead paragraph of Wikipedia:Verifiability says, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." (I added the emphasis here)

Considering these pronouncements in two of the three Wikipedia core policies, it seems to me that the "may be used" translation should be given prominence in the article, and the article should also note that some sources provide translations saying "shall be used". -- Boracay Bill (talk) 07:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

As with any legal document, it seems that, ultimately, only an officially mandated retranslation will do, since the original does not accurately reflect the fact that se usará, as both our anonymous colleague and JCRB have diligently noted, correctly translates as shall be used or will be used. Unfortunately, a new translation is not forthcoming so I will have to agree with Bill that, for now, we should use the only existing official, albeit incorrect, translation. We can then simply point out its errors; in fact, I believe it our duty to do so. I myself speak Spanish, though not as fluently as JCRB and most likely our anonymous colleague.

However, a correct translation still does not prove that Spanish was the national as well as the official language, as our anonymous colleague claims. The only thing it does is state that it will be used officially. Official and national status are not legally identical. An institution may proclaim a language official but not national (as in the case of English in the Philippines, where it is an official but not national language). Conversely, it may proclaim a language national but not official (as in the case of Spanish in Mexico, where it is a national but not official language). --Pare Mo (talk) 04:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Look, let us be a little constructive here. We know for a fact that the "may be used" translation is flawed. We also know according to some historians, that certain documents relating to the First Philippine Republic were intentionally mis-translated, including parts of the Malolos Constitution, to lessen the importance of Spanish (and Hispanic culture) in the eyes of the new generations of Filipinos. This is understandable given the effort by the US authorities to introduce English and pave the way for American colonization. Therefore, let us look beyond the small print of the Wikipedia policies, and try to be honest and constructive. Article 93 says "Spanish will be used", period. We can add a note about the different translations afterwards (as I suggested above). JCRB (talk) 09:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

What I wrote was a late reply to the earlier debate on whether Spanish was the first national language. I believe we have moved on, then.

As for Article 93, you do have a point. That se usará is in the future tense is plain fact, and not an issue concerning WP:NPOV, I later realized. (The Spanish original would be used anyway in the Spanish Wikipedia.)

So given that NPOV is no longer an issue, I believe we should push through with your plan. --Pare Mo (talk) 11:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Offhand, I don't have an issue with that so long as any assertion in the article that the "may be used" translation is flawed is supported by a cited reliable source (vs. an unsupported assertion on the basis that "we know for a fact" ). I have mentioned sources above which support assertions that alternative translations using "shall" do exist, but none which assert that "may" is flawed. My own speculation is that early translations (e.g., the Kalaw 1927, p. 443 translation I cited above) probably used "shall", that the translation which I cited above as Guevara 2005, p. 117, using "may" appeared in 1972 under the auspices of the National Historical Commission (NHC) (see here), and that this 1972 NHC translation appears now to be regarded as the "official" translation (some of the other sources I cited above which use this translation describe it as such). -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

JCRB, you say above, "We also know according to some historians that certain documents relating to the First Philippine Republic were intentionally mis-translated, including parts of the Malolos Constitution, to lessen the importance of Spanish (and Hispanic culture) in the eyes of the new generations of Filipinos. This is understandable given the effort by the US authorities to introduce English and pave the way for American colonization." Can you please cite sources for the assertions that

1. certain documents relating to the First Philippine Republic were intentionally mis-translated, including parts of the Malolos Constitution
2. this was done in order to lessen the importance of Spanish (and Hispanic culture) in the eyes of the new generations of Filipinos
3. there was an effort by the US authorities to introduce English and pave the way for American colonization

I have a few Philippine history books at home which I've only used as references. I haven't read any of them cover to cover, but I don't recall reading those points in any of them. I am away from home at present, in Manila for a few days.I may be able to find copies of specific books here if you'll cite the ones I should look for. Regarding point 3, I'm sure that providing the Thomasite teachers to jump-start the Philippine education system had that effect somewhat, but I read the primary intention there as the jump-starting of the Philippine education system rather than the suppression of the Spanish language. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

(continuing, with widened scope) Hmmm.... Looking at this article again, I see that it has wider problems than just the need to clarify the status of the Spanish language during the period of the revolutionary Malolos government (citing appropriate supporting sources, of course). The article implies that the 1897 Tagalog Republic and the 1898-1902 Malolos Republic functioned as national governments. Neither did, of course. The country was governed under Spanish and US sovereignty during the time periods when those nascent revolutionary "governments" existed. It doesn't make sense to explore that in depth in this article—which is, of course, on a more limited topic. The article should not give this false impression, however. I'll defer addressing this until I can edit the article with a stack of history books handy -- probably next week sometime. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect interpretations (not just translations)

I don't think there is a need for the article to state that "certain documents relating to the First Philippine Republic were intentionally mis-translated". However, if you want to include this, I will look for the references. Meanwhile, I'd like to ask if your history books really say that the Thomasites "jump-started the Philippine education system". Let me point out that they did not. There was already a public education system in the Philippines since 1863 (for example the schools of San Juan de Letrán, of San Beda, Santa Isabel, Santa Catalina, Santa Rosa, La Concordia, La Consolación and Santa Rita). I would like to see those books and to what extent their interpretation of events (not just translations) are flawed. JCRB (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I am responding from an internet cafe in manila. I will be back in Boracay in a day or two, and will look in my reference books there. I haven't previously looked closely at the Thomasites, etc., buit I recall that some of the books do have some material on that topic. I'll also look for any further info on translations and/or mistranslations of the Malolos constitution.

More generally on this article, it seems to me that in order to treat this topic properly, the article should open with some info on the introduction of the Spanish language into the Philippines, or at least on its becoming a language of significance followed by some info on its increasing importance during the 300ish year Spanish period, followed by some material on Spanish during the American period, followed by some material on the Spanish language subsequent to the American period. I think that I probably have info on all of this, and will try to edit that into the article once I'm settled in back in Boracay, probably in the next week or two. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Late 19th century and the American period

I've just finished some edits relating to these periods. I tried to stick to cite-supprted points (and I tagged a few unsupported assertions). Though I'm no expert in this subject and I didn't refer to sources other than some which were already cited in the article, I think that my edits improved the article.

I do have a bit of a problem with one point, however. Speaking of the early 20th century timeframe, the article says, "Spanish had become the most important language in the country despite roughly half of the population not speaking the language." I'm wondering what other language might have been spoken in this timeframe by a larger percentage of the population than Spanish. I'm guessing that none of the indigenous languages were then spoken by more than half of the population. If that was the case at that time, the "... despite roughly half of the population not speaking the language" comment seems out of place. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 07:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Spanish being taught in the Filipino schools as a compulsory subject

I have heard that Spanish being taught in the Filipino schools as a compulsory subject. LeUrsidae96 (talk) 03:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Vocabulary

Baho/Bajo meaning "strong smelling, nasty smelling" is a common Spanish word especially used in the Caribbean/Andalusian dialects. There should be no confusion over this word if you truly know the Spanish language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.193.91 (talk) 12:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Spelling in List of Spanish words of Philippine origin section

I noticed that some of the words identified as "old Tagalog" contain the letter "c", and that Tagalog language#Latin alphabet doesn't show a "c" for Tagalog. More info here, which is cited there. This looks like a conflict between the two articles. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Wtmitchell, the Old Tagalog language used to be written using the Abecedario alphabet and using Spanish orthography during the Spanish Colonial Period up to 1940 when the Tagalog-Based National Language was taught nationwide replacing the Abecedario alphabet with the Abakada alphabet and changing the letter C with a K. Please check on the Wikipedia article Filipino orthography#Adoption of the Latin Alphabet. Here are some external links for further information --> (The evolution of the native Tagalog alphabet), (The evolution of the native Tagalog alphabet: Genocide), and (The importance of the Tagalog 32-letter alphabet to the modern education of the youth). I hope that these will give light to your concern. Please read the 3 articles if you have time. Bacoleño (talk) 02:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Aha! Thanks for that. I hadn't realized that the alphabet had a 'c' in Spanish colonial times, and that indigenization in 1936 dropped the 'c'. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) By the way, here's a link of Project Gutenberg EBook of Doctrina Christiana. Doctrina Christiana (English: Christian Doctrine) is the very first book printed in the Philippines (published in Manila, 1593). It is written in both Old Spanish language (ergo, old Spanish orthographic style) and Old Tagalog language [written in both Latin alphabet (old Spanish orthographic style) and Baybayin script)] to teach the native Tagalogs on the basic doctrine of the Catholic Church (Lord's Prayer, Hail Mary, etc.). The book is also meant to teach the Spanish-modified Latin alphabet and to introduce the Old Spanish language to the native Tagalogs. Bacoleño (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Re(?)imposition of English after WW-II.

I've reverted this good-faith edit. My reasoning is as follows:

1. The assertion relies on a supporting cite. The relevant paragraph of cited item says (translated by google):

After the war, English was imposed as the language of power winning, because the U.S. had already won three wars (in 1898 against Spain in 1902 against Filipino independence and in 1945 - And Spain was associated politically with the countries-losers. The political setback, social and demographic of Spanish was clear. There was, indeed, a widespread shift in language attitudes.

As I read this, it makes the point that the combined effect of the three wars and half a century of U.S. rule was responsible for a widespread shift in language attitudes. It also asserts (incorrectly) that English was imposed as the official language after WW-II.

2. The 1943 Philippine constitution, under which the country was governed while occupied by Japan, did not designate an official language (it did mandate that the government take steps toward the development and propagation of Tagalog as the national language.) The 1935 constitution, which was reinstated by the repudiation of the 1943 constitution, designated English and Spanish as official languages. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect and misleading translation on a reference

In the header someone referenced Professor Guillermo Gómez Rivera, member of the Real Academia Filipina de la Lengua as saying that: "It's true that Spanish was never the maternal language of the majority of Filipinos." That's very misleading. What Gomez-Rivera wrote is that: "Es verdad que nunca fueron todos los habitantes de las Islas Filipinas los que tuvieron el idioma español como su lengua materna." "Estadísticas del Idioma Español en Filipinas" which means: "It's true that Spanish was never the maternal language of ALL Filipinos." Huge difference, specially if we take into account the sentence that follows that one in the same article: "pero tampoco es justo decir que este idioma nunca se habló en Filipinas en escala nacional." which means: "But it wouldn't be fair neither to say that this language was never spoken in the Philippines on a national scale." —Preceding unsigned comment added by RafaelMinuesa (talk • contribs) 02:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Need to Specify

it need to exact wether it is a Zamboangueno (chavacano) or of caviteno/Ternatero(chabacano). although intelligible with each other but there are orthographies and the lexicon that are not same. like for example: tarda(zamboangueno) whil talda for caviteno/ternateno, which mean "tagal". thanks!;-)--Acer Cyle (talk) 07:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Characteristics

The section on the characteristics of Philippine Spanish has no citations, has original research that seems to be based on anecdotal observations, and some inaccuracies. For example, it says it usually follows Peninsular (I hate the term Castilian Spanish but that may be a pet peeve of mine) norms of differentiating between palatal liquids [ʎ] spelled <ll. and palatal glides spelled or <y> IPA: [j]. However, that distinction has largely vanished in Spain. mnewmanqc (talk) 08:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)