Talk:Tagalog language

/summaryforotherlanguages

Trillon borrowing

In the number sections it states that 1,000,000,000,000 is called 'trilyon', borrowed from the spanish word 'trillón'. But Trillon in spanish does not mean 1,000,000,000,000 (10^12) , it means 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 (10^18). See http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trillon I don't know if in Tagalog trilyon is really used for 10^12 or not, but if it is, and it is supposedly taken from spanish I think a clarification should be made saying it is not correct spanish. Perhaps it is actually borrowed from english, were I understand trillion really means 10^12. Can someone familiar with Tagalog confirm? --200.5.113.234 (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

VERY Unlikely borrowings

I removed very, very unlikely borrowings in the "borrowings" chart. Let's get one thing straight the following are rarely, rarely borrowed:

• Pronouns - Tayo is NOT borrow from the other languages of Luzon.
• Conjuctions - Give me several examples where function words like conjunctions are borrowed? And, I mean several, i.e. more than say... 7.
• Huwag (!!!) - lexical items such as this are very, very doubtful.

All the above a FUNCTION words.

Somehow, certain persons are mistaking borrowings and cognates. They see a cognate and immediately think that their language is the origin, when they are half wrong. BOTH Tagalog and Malay derive from a common Proto-Austronesian. The person, who keeps saying that Tagalog is derived from Malay is incorrect, full stop or period. And, they keep insisting that particular lexical items are in fact derived from Malay. Those lexical items I fail to see the "derivation", I have removed. Those that are plausible, have remained intact until they can be verified. Otherwise, STENT. Joemaza 20:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

tayo is borrowed from Ilocano or Southern Cordillera languages.Kasumi-genx (talk)

Hi Joe, I'm going to address your concerns.

The use of TAYO is limited to languages spoken in Luzon. Tagalog is a Central Philippine language where KITA is normally used. My source is Dr. David Zorc. I'll look for the full citation (it's been a while). This also goes for a number of Tagalog's words, many of which were borrowed from Kapampangan.

Conjunctions. Tagalog and other Philippine languages has borrowed a lot of conjunctions from Spanish - o, porke, para, pues, ni, hasta, mientrastanto, etc.

The "huwag" part I'll remove. I think I may have gotten it from the Zorc source, but I'm not sure.

But yes, Tagalog did borrow a lot of Malay words while many are obviously cognate; the problem is sorting between the two. The ones I listed are from Dr. John U. Wolff's 1976Malay borrowings in Tagalog. I'm reverting your removals for now, and I'll be putting in the citation for the Zorc one as soon as I find it. --Chris S. 02:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Aha. I found the Zorc reference: The Prehistory and Origin of the Tagalog People, 1993. The complete list:

borrowed from Southern Luzon
bibig "mouth"
búkas "tomorrow"
butó "bone"
daán "hundred"
gúlat "surprise"
ilán "how many"
kailán "when"
kayó "you (plural)"
lamán "contents" (but note Bikol lamán "flesh")
loób "inside"

borrowed from Kapampangan
akyát "climb"
at "and"
babà "chin"
bakít "why" (but note Bikol Daet bakin, and Bikol,
Bisayan bukun ~ b«k«n)
bundók "mountain"
dagdág "add" (but note Bikol dagdag)
damdám "feel"
gúyam "ants"
íbon "bird"
kapatíd "sibling"
katawan "body" (OTag kataw-an)
páwis "sweat"
tuyô "dry"

borrowed from South Luzon via Kapampangan
alípin "slave" (cognate with Bikol oripon)
apóy "fire"
áso "dog"
baitáng "steps, stairs"
balat "skin"
darás "adze"
galáw "move"
ígat "eel"
kalúban "sheath"
kúlam "witchcraft"
táyo "we"
úlap "cloud"
usok "smoke"

borrowed from Malay (from Wolff 1976)
binibini "miss"
buntót "tail"
kánan "right"
káya "able"
kúlay "color"
súlat "write"
tanghalì "noon"

borrowed from Sanskrit via Malay (from Wolff 1976)
ása "hope"
bása "read"
bathalà "god"
gandá "beauty"
hinà "weak"

borrowed from Persian via Malay (from Wolff 1976)
álak "wine, liquor"
barò "clothing"

borrowed from Tamil via Malay (from Wolff 1976)
bilanggô "prisoner"
bágay "thing"

borrowed from Arabic via Malay (from Wolff 1976)
akála "think"
hukóm "judge"

--Chris S. 02:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Good man! Way to take a challenge. I trust your research. Thanks for following up. Once again, you're doing a great job. BTW, can you take a look at the Iloko stuff? Thanks. Joemaza (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't help but comment that there is a word in Tagalog which doesn't seem to come from Spanish but is a cognate with latin which bulla(bubble).Ako maybe a cognate of ego(I). Also tata is an old/ancient latin meaning father(similar to Tatay). Cognates of sabon(soap) are found in the languages of India/Hindi (and regional languages), Indonesia(Sebun), Arabic, Persian, and Malay. --Jondel (talk) 08:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point. Sometimes I find the Spanish borrowings bizarre because virtually every Tagalog conjunction borrowed from Spanish has a Tagalog counterpart that means exactly the same thing, and which ones speakers use seem to be regional and even personal: I have never heard a Tagalog speaker use "pues," "hasta," "mientrstanto;" I have very rarely heard "porke;" "ni" is not a Spanish borrowing at all; and "para" and "o" are the only common ones I hear, and many speakers prefer "dahil"/"dahil sa" and other constructions, etc. over "para" (I have heard speakers use both in comparatively equal frequency). In fact, "o" is the only example mentioned that I hear almost universally.

Also the Malay/Tagalog issue is very interesting. Technically Tagalog is "older" than Malay considering the fact that the Austronesian people migrated from prehistoric Taiwan and Southern China to the Philippine archipelago, then further south until they reached Malaysia and Indonesia; the Malaysians and Indonesians seem to have "back migrated" to parts of the Philippines sometime afterwards. Historical linguistic research shows support for this. The cultures have been in contact for centuries well before Spanish occupation. Also, some genetic research suggests that Filipinos are genetically closer to Southern Chinese (where the Austronesian people are believed to have originated) than people of the Indonesian/Malaysian archipelago which also supports the "migration from Taiwan" theory. Not to belabor the point, but sorting out what are borrowings and what are not is difficult because we are trying to "sort out" borrowed words from languages that are genetically related. I have articles; sorry I don't have them prepared but I'll fish them out when I have time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.121.74 (talk) 05:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Rizal,Bulacan,Bataan,Nueva Ecija,Tarlac and Zambales used to be Kapampangan in the prehispanic era that is why the tagalog spoken there has many kapampangan loans.Kasumi-genx (talk)

It's very hard to sort which words may be borrowings from Malay or which are simply cognates. Also, who knows... maybe Malay actually borrowed from Tagalog! The Austronesian language group, if I remember correctly, is one of the largest or the largest language group when it comes to the sheer number of different languages in the family. These languages generally share a core stock of words inherited from Proto-Austronesian. Also, because the written histories for these languages most often don't stretch very far back compared to say, Indo-European languages, I imagine that even language experts themselves may have some difficulty sorting everything out. I say that a comprehensive academic study should be referred to when trying to list borrowings. I think even a language history book will get some cognates/borrowings confused. With that being said, there are a few words that appear to be questionable just from a glance. "Anak", for example, is most definitely cognate-- it appears in a great many Philippine (and other Austronesian?) languages and is very commonly used. A word that critical is not often borrowed. Other words that should be probably looked into are "tulong" and "sakit". But, in general, all those listed as borrowed from Malay, or any other genetically related language, should be checked with scrutiny before being presented as fact. The world already has enough misconceptions about language--we don't want to create any more! 112.198.78.135 (talk) 10:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that it is quite unlikely for Tagalog and other Philippines languages to borrow from Malay language. As it is mentioned by 72.196.121.74, Philippines languages are older than Malay-Indonesian language. Malay-Indonesian language has less complex grammar compare to Philippines languages. From my observation, I found out that younger languages tend to have simplified grammar compare to their related ancestor. For example, Latin has far more complex grammar compare to its descendants, e.g. French, Spanish, Italian. Koine Greek also has complex grammar which is not to be used in Modern Greek. The same also applies to English, in which Shakespearean English is way too complicated for today's English users. So, saying Tagalog (since it is older) borrowing words from Malay will not be convincing. And the list of Tagalog loan words Christopher Sundita may not be accurate. For example, in Malay, "color" is "warna";"write" is "tulis", "prisoner" is "tawanan", "beauty" is "kecantikan". There is no trace of "kulay","sulat","bilanggo"or "ganda" in both Malay and Indonesian.

And Tagalog may have borrowed DIRECTLY from Tamil, Sanskrit and Arabic because there are ample evidences to show that ancient Filipino had done trading with Indian and Arabic merchants, far before the establishment of Malacca Sultanate. And I haven't read any historical accounts about Filipinos trading with Malay merchants even though they are relatives. So saying these borrowed words are introduced to Tagalog via Malay will not be plausible. 118.101.112.173 (talk) 04:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Lists: Needed or not?

The excessive lists and otherwise trivial content in the "Examples" and "Learning resources" sections do not really seem necessary. However, it would be a rather sweeping change to remove all of them, so I am looking for thoughts as to what parts are useful and which should be removed. Thanks, Kakofonous (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I opine that lists which flout WP:V should be removed. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If you don't object, I think I'll remove "The Lord's Prayer (Ama Namin)", "Common phrases", "Proverbs", and "Learning Resources". They don't really seem useful. --Kakofonous (talk) 00:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

ABOUT tagalog words

I just want to say that the word KARMA is an international word. And should not even be put in the list of words that tagalog took from tamil since most people in other countries also know and use the word Karma at times. That word KARMA is more english to other people. Also, why is there a list of these stuff on here when you don't even see other language pages with list of words that were borrowed from other countries?! I think you should take that out. It's pretty stupid to put that list up when it's not even needed.

It's a derived word from Sanskrit, NOT Tamil. So, if you're going to BOLD your post, make sure you come correct. Otherwise you look obnoxious. In addition, if you have enough gall, then claim your post.

On the contrary, regarding loan words, it's OK. Look around the Wikipedia, you'll find a list of loans listed for some of the articles. So, your argument is quite moot. Joemaza (talk) 01:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

tagalog post alveolars

tagalog post alveolars do exist,but tagalog postalveolars are normally alveolo palatal not like english which are domed,rounded and partially palatalized. proof: http://felipeaira.i.ph/blogs/felipeaira/2008/06/26/ipa-chart-for-tagalog\ for me \ty\ digraph makes sense in tagalog orthography instead of \ts\ because soft g which is the voiced counterpart is written as \dy\ in tagalog orthography,tagalog tʃ is actually tɕ and dʒ is actually dʑ in tagalog,tagalog post alveolars.

What i notice is that native alveolo palatals occur on demonstratives frequently dijan> dʑan(dem.) and tijan>tɕan(dem.) and they sometimes dissapear in stress added syllables on loan words like junction which is sometimes pronounced as dijaŋɕon or dzaŋɕon and diego is normally pronounced as dʑego in tagalog.

Some posh people pronounce the soft g sound as ʑ especially Kris Aquino-/korek ka ʑan/

Kasumi-genx (talk) 14:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I happen to be wrong.

I can understand your first hand evidence, however, Wikipedia would have us refrain from writing "research"; that's what I would call this because I haven't come across anything similar to this. If you find literature to support it, add to the article.

One comment on conventions - '//' forward slashes/virgulas are commonly used when transliterating phonemes and '[]' square brakets are used when transliterating actual phonetics, or their actuall realization. Compare /botl/ with [bɑʔl] (in some English dialects) for bottle. So, I hope I get this right.

According to your experience: /d(i)jan/ -> [dʑan]

Joemaza (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the first poster; a lot of the information is not inaccurate but could be enriched since it seems to capture the pronunciation habits of certain dialects. I find that urban speakers are more likely to pronounce true [tʃ] and [dʒ] (as in the words "tsa" /tʃa/, Eng. "tea" and "diyan" /dijan/, Eng. "there"—the sequences /dj/, /dij/ etc. seem to be in free variation with /dʒ/) but I have heard both urban speakers and most rural speakers (in my experience, that is) pronounce [tɕ] and [dʑ]. I would actually argue that [tɕ] and [dʑ] are more common from my experience.

Also, the sound [ʃ], which seems to an allophone in free variation of /sij/ (as in "siya" /sija/, Eng. "he/she"), is closer to [ɕ] in my opinion, especially in rural speakers' speech. I think it is worth including both, as in the case above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.121.74 (talk) 04:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

confusion between tʃ and ts in tagalog orthography

many speakers i notice replace tʃ for ts example is pizza is pronounced as pitʃa instead of pitsa Kasumi-genx (talk) 15:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That's because, in Tagalog, there is no distinction between the two phonemes. --Pare Mo (talk) 06:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That sounds more like phonology (sounds) than orthography (writing).

Nevertheless, I must attest to hearing the same. Joemaza (talk) 22:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Gaddang link

I changed the Gaddang link as the actual gaddang page is listed as Gaddang_Language, all of the other links refer to pages with a small l. I fixed the link to point to the correct page by changing the capitalization, but perhaps the Gaddang_Language page should be changed to Gaddang_language? I was hesitant to make that change due to all of the other links that might be effected and I'll leave that for an expert...

) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.77.149.60 (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This part should be exluded in the article since it is about Filipino already

In 1939, Manuel L. Quezon named the national language "Wikang Pambansa" ("National Language").[4] Twenty years later, in 1959, it was renamed by the Secretary of Education, Jose Romero, as Pilipino to give it a national rather than ethnic label and connotation. The changing of the name did not, however, result in acceptance at the conscious level among non-Tagalogs, especially Cebuanos who had not accepted the selection.[5].

In 1971, the language issue was revived once more, and a compromise solution was worked out—a "universalist" approach to the national language, to be called Filipino rather than Pilipino. When a new constitution was drawn up in 1987, it named Filipino as the national language.[5] The constitution specified that as that Filipino language evolves, it shall be further developed and enriched on the basis of existing Philippine and other languages.

--Filipinayzd (talk) 09:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The article section involved is "Tagalog:History". All of that fits, IMHO. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 11:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

open vowel?

I've read (can't remember where) that Tagalog a is more of an [ə] or [ɐ] than an [a], so that it may be one of very few languages without an open vowel phoneme. Can anyone confirm? kwami (talk) 09:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

it really depends on the position of the word but some dialects do contrast it and ə is used on unstressed /a/ part of the word in most dialects. for example baka /baka/ and baka /bəka/(maybe) Kasumi-genx (talk) 03:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

For dialects which do not contrast it, is a [a] or [ə] in stressed position? kwami (talk) 04:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

/a/ is pronounced as an open vowel regardless if it's a back ,mid or front but it is [ə] or [ɐ] in medial stressed positions some of the dialects that split [ə] from /a/ merged [ə] with /i/ that is why masaya has a synonym/variant masiya>masaya,some nasalize their /a/ on some positions which is stereotyped on gay people. Kasumi-genx (talk)

Okay, thanks! So, if I'm following you, a medial stressed /a/ is pronounced [ə], but it's still [a] in other positions, right? I'm just wondering if there's any language or dialect in the world that doesn't have an [a]. kwami (talk) 06:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Kwami,in ubykh the /a/ has many allophones,it is only [a] on certain environments,in tagalog in non stressed medial position it is [a] but there is some accent.Kasumi-genx (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC).

Regarding the findings of the austronesian basic vocubalary database

it says that most philippine languages came from one root. http://language.psy.auckland.ac.nz/austronesian/research.php .Kasumi-genx (talk) 19:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Section on dialects

Why has that been deleted (recently - I won't search the History for exactly how)? -Keinstein (talk) 13:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it was vandalized and removed in the forst two of three vandalizing edits on 11 March by an anon at IP 121.1.11.164. The third edit trashed the Code switching section. (see [1], [2], [3]). ip2location locates that IP in Makati. I'm not really into tracking down vandals, but the contribution list from that IP might give some clue. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Just for clarification, the Philippines (and most ASEAN countries) use Dynamic IPs as well as "public generic IPs" that can be used by any ISPs. --- Laibcoms (talk | Contribs) 08:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for doing what I hadn't time to. I've cut-and-pasted the sections back. -Keinstein (talk) 09:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

kin terms

I'm wondering if anyone can tell me the Tagalog words for these kin terms:

co-wife, co-father-in-law, co-brother-in-law, etc. (Spanish coesposa, consuegro, concuñado; also if there are junior/senior distinctions)

I found an old dictionary with baisan, balay for consuegro/a, but don't know if there's a difference between those two words; also bilas for concuñados, but nothing for coesposa.

Thanks, kwami (talk) 06:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't know if you'll find a word for co-wife. The culture of most Tagalog speakers is not polygamous, so they may not have a word for that. However, the Muslims in the South are also Tagalog speakers. Maybe they allow polygamous relationships - but the word they use might be a word tied to the Muslim religion as opposed to a general word. Not every word in every language has a corresponding word in every other language.

I just checked my Vicassan's Pilipino-English Dictionary, Abridged Edition, and there's no entry for baisan or balay. "bilas" is there alright, "The husband of one's sister-in-law".

The Tagalog equivalent of English's "co-" is "ka", so maybe "kaasawa" is co-wife. Gronky (talk) 21:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I mean, if I used the word "ka-asawa" in a sentence without explanation, the person I was talking to would probably ask what I'm talking about, but, if I was talking to someone in English and they used the word "co-wife", I'd ask them what they're talking about (especially if the person I was talking to was a non-native English speaker), even though the word is actually correct. Gronky (talk) 11:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to make words up, so if Tagalog doesn't have a word, then so be it. The consuegro terms might be obsolete, or maybe just too obscure for an abridged dictionary. I wonder if bilas is actually masculine, or if that's just an error in translation. kwami (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Ka is just the equivalent -ian or -ese in philippine languages it's synonyms are I-(Northern Philippine),Taga and -Non —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasumi-genx (talk • contribs) 05:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Taglish

Horrible horrible and tacky. Stick to Tagalog when speaking please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.190.62 (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

"Official" minority language?

Just wondering how a language in Canada is deemed "official" as a minority language. There are two official languages in Canada: French and English. I would move that the map and list be amended so that Canada fit under the category where Tagalog is spoken significantly. It has no official status in the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zapallon (talk • contribs) 17:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Languages of Alaska?

Why there is a template of <Languages of Alaska>? Are there people speaking Tagalog in Alaska? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.166.197.244 (talk) 11:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Usage of Kita?

1. Kita-I_You
2. Kita-They,dual pronoun

I think Kita is an an analogy of Daka that is used by the Northern Tagalogs who used to speak Kapampangan.Kasumi-genx (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC).

I don't think the second "kita" is in modern use, or maybe it's very rare. In Ilonggo, "kita" is a form of Tagalog's "tayo" ("ta" also exists in Ilonggo). Gronky (talk) 02:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Batanguenyo uses it...Kasumi-genx (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC).

Official Status in Semporna, Malaysia ?

Since when semporna has its own special regional language? even the bajau language - which is being spoken by most of its residents doesn't have any official status. Apart from that, malaysia doesn't have any "recognised" regional language.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.132.124.50 (talk • contribs) 23:34, September 17, 2009

Hmmm.... That was added in this edit, with a cited supporting source: "Basic population characteristics by administrative districts - 2006", Department of Statistics, Malaysia. The info and the cited supporting source apparently came from the Semporna article, where an equivalent assertion supported by the same cited source is made. The cite of the supporting source in that other article was added in this edit. Are you disputing that this cited source supports this? A footnote in WP:BURDEN says, "When there is dispute about whether the article text is fully supported by the given source, direct quotes from the source and any other details requested should be provided as a courtesy to substantiate the reference." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

yes, i'm disputing the validity of those articles... i mean, i'm come from Sabah and the state doesn't have its own recognized offcial language. Even the indigenous languages (such as kadazan-dusun, murut, bajau) doesn't have any official status here. Thus, why do they want to recognised a foreign language as an official language right?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.82.96.77 (talk • contribs) 19:40, September 20, 2009

Disputing that a cited supporting source supports an article assertion is a different matter than disputing the validity of a supporting source. See WP:V. I haven't seen the cited source and I'm guided here by WP:AGF. I see that the editor who added that info and cited that source is active, and I've asked that he join this discussion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

oh.. yes, that would be nice... he should join into this discussion.. (obviously, since he's the one who edited it) heheh... :)

Hi there. The citation ("Basic population characteristics by administrative districts - 2006", Department of Statistics, Malaysia) does not say anything about about Talalog enjoying official status or whatever. It only states the total population in the district of Semporna - and this is the purpose of this citation/source. I did not insert it in this page. The citation should be removed from the Tagalog page (Done!). Also, as a Sabahan, im quite sure that Tagalog does not enjoy any official status in here. Try ask the person who inserted it: User:23prootie. ќמшמφטтгמ^torque 14:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

As the assertion has been challenged, and as the editor who added the assertion has removed the supporting citation in this edit, I've removed the assertion from the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Intelligiblity of Northern Tagalog and Southern Tagalog Dialects

I was thinking if Tagalog can be divided into two languages since the Bikol group was reclassified to many languages from one based on the current gauge of classification of Philippine languages.--Kasumi-genx (talk)

Is this question still related to the improvement of the article Tagalog language on Wikipedia?--JL 09 _^q?c 14:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes,because there is no studies regarding that...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasumi-genx (talk • contribs) 11:04, January 3, 2010

Baybayin

Don't remove the Baybayin text in the article. It only takes one user (speaker) for a language to be alive again, and since I am not the only one using the text, it counts as "alive".--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ (ᜂᜐᜉ)^Baybayin 04:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Phonology

[ this edit] I placed a tag in the phonology section. That was after these edits changed the assertion, "Tagalog has 35 phonemes: 22 of them are consonants, 5 are vowels, and 8 are dipthongs." to say 35 and 22 instead of 30 and 21. That assertion cites this as a supporting source. That source says, "The classic Tagalog alphabet consists of 20 letters (15 consonants and 5 vowels)", which may or may not be relevant there, and also contains a section about consonants which says, "# the (authentic) consonants are: b, p, d, t, k, g, ng, h, l, m, n, r, s, w, y" (I count 15 there). The section on consonants also contains a chart which depicts 25 consonant phonemes (at least that's what I think the chart depicts). I'm a bit confused about what the supporting source is trying to say, but it does not seem to support either the previous or the current assertion in the sentence for which it is cited in support. Could someone who knows more about linguistics than I please take a look at this? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The source has them, 32, just before the Baybayin text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.95.1.159 (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

IPA pronunciation

Could someone who knows it please add an IPA transcription for the name of the language? With stress placement. I've heard "Tagalog" pronounced with several different stress placements, and I don't know which is the norm. --129.67.169.122 (talk) 12:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

This page puts the stress on the second syllable. I'll add the English IPA based on Merriam-Webster, but a Tagalog transcription would be appreciated as well. Lfh (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Besides MW, that's the only pronunciation listed at the OED, so I think that settles it. kwami (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Very good. Re. the first of your two edits - my browser doesn't permit me to see any difference - was it something important? Lfh (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh it was the looped g. Lfh (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You guys have found a verified source, but FWIW, as a native speaker of both English & Tagalog, my American English pronunciation of Tagalog is something like [tʰəgɑːɫɨg] --Chris S. (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

ᜆᜄᜎᜂᜄ᜔

The community of Baybayin users (1 person), represented by myself, recognize that spelling as an official spelling of the word "Tagalog" in our script. I believe the constant reverting is in fact discrimination against our people and culture.--Buhay Tao (talk) 03:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that use of Baybayin is not "official." Your stated belief is what we call an "assumption of bad faith," something we strongly discourage at Wikipedia. Please do not accuse other editors of prejudism or racial discrimination. If you'd like to bring forth sources that illustrate that Baybayin is still used, you'll have more of a case. Until then, I don't see any reason to include this information. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 06:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I keep on watching this page since 23prootie kept on adding Baybayin on the article, even though it is no longer used in texts. Rest assured, 23prootie was blocked because of disruptive editing and personal attacks. Buhay Tao has the notion that he is still using the script, so 23prootie did on the previous section above. I guess Buhay Tao and 23prootie did talk pages contributions in Wikipedia with headings written in Baybayin, 23prootie did renamed himself (yes, he moved his user page and user talk page into a characters embedded in Baybayin. Buhay Tao's block was lifted few days ago (I guess the reason of his blockage is block evasion or something) to allow username change request. Buhay Tao did renamed himself into a user name bearing Baybayin text. Hmm.. I smell something similarities and another evasion.--JL 09 ^_q?c 15:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Loanwords into english

Adobo and aggrupation may be used in english in filipines, but are not loanwords from tagalo but from latin romance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.18.23.120 (talk) 10:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Who's that Filipino putting dirty words?

I saw from the beginning of the page: Template:Infobox Language ang ang pagtatae ng tao! . I'll watch this page. --Sir Jazer 13 (talk) 11:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Map oddity

I can easily believe there are Tagalog speakers in Canada; I have met some. However, the map also has Greenland coloured pink, and I doubt there are many Filipinos there. 114.93.102.85 (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... I see that the map has had several past versions -- some having Greenland colored pink, some not. The latest version of the map has a comment in Tagalog which Google translates to English as,

"This map shows the countries using the language Tagalog. The pink shows the places where this minority, The pink color also shows the places where it over 100,000 people, and the color red shows areas where which used it more than 500000-1000000 people."

Three specific sources of data are listed, the Johsua Project's Filipino page (which, last I heard, wasn't considered a WP:RS), a CIA Factbook URL which I haven't been able to load, and which looks like it might be intended to be the entry for Argentina, and Ethnologie.com. None of those sources mention Greenland, but Greenland might have been colored pink because it is a colony of Denmark. The Joshua Project page has an entry for Denmark, and seems to be asserting that 5% of that country's ~5.7M population (one person in twenty) are Tagalog-speaking Filipinos. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

zero

Re this edit, I don't speak Tagalog, but I happen to have copies of Fr. English's dictionaries on my bookshelf. Re this edit, his English-Tagalog dictionary translates sense (1) of zero as "n. nought: Sero. (as Sero, not as Zero)

I'm wondering a couple of things. Firstly, specifically related to thbis article and to Tagalog as a language, was the nought sense of zero perhaps expressed as "sero" during Spanish times? Did it perhaps morph into "zero" post-1898 under linguistic pressure during American governance and Thomasite schooling? If the answer is affirmative, which version should be asserted here as "zero" in the Tagalog language -- the one loaned from Spanish or the one loaned from English? Secondly, transcending this article, one wonders when/how the concept of the numeric zero (صفر — ṣifr) surfaced in Filipino culture. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Inaccurate Citation of Facts

Mga Bansang may Higit Isang Milyong Mananalita or countries with more than 1 Million Tagalog speakers. Enumerated primarily are countries of the Philippines and the United States. A Filipino and Tagalog-Maneleno myself, it will not require me any academic degree to say with authority that there is no population study that will confirm validity of the figure cited. There can never be 1 Million Tagalog speakers in the United States. Likewise, the claim that there are 100 Million Tagalog speakers all over the world is similarly inaccurate and no amount of citation or reference can the contributor cite to make the math realistic. Latest and most recent census study places 85 Million the population of the Philippines. Only Filipinos speak tagalog (though only a portion). For Tagalog speakers in other countries, they are by origin Filipinos. If Tagalog for example is spoken in Japan, it to be 100% understood that the one so speaking is a Filipino and can never be a Japanese national unless perhaps married with a Filipino (but still with a Filipino link). Point here is that no figure or number can be added from that population of 85 million of which only a third speaks Tagalog that can be categorized as Tagalog speakers. Note also that the claim that Tagalog is spoken in other countries is likewise a baseless citation. As said, other than Filipinos themselves, Tagalog cannot be spoken in France of Germany for example. That is, contributor is likewise advised to extend a little further study and research on Filipino language and dialects not to mix-up Filipino as a language and Tagalog and other regional vernacular as dialects. There is a significant distinguishing difference between what is a language and a dialect. Correction need likewise be made on the claim that Tagalog is spoken in the Southern Marianas Islands. Angmayakda (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

You obviously haven't bothered looking at the data then. The 2000 US Census gave 1.2 million Tagalog speakers; the 2009 study down by the Census bureau gives 1.5 million.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)