Talk:Filipino language/Archive 1

Nature of the language

What is the universal nucleus of the Filipino language?

Tagalog. Jondel

But ISO 639 accepts Filipino (ISO code fil) as a LEGITIMATE language just as (Bahasa) Indonesian, which is a VARIANT of MALAY - Isao

There should be an official Philippine declaration that Filipino and Pilipino are the same language or completely prohibit the use of the noun Pilipino in English documents. One or the other to avoid official and legal ambiguities. Also, Filipino and Tagalog should either be categorically and officially be differentiated or made the same for the same reasons.--Jondel 04:03, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually, the terms 'Filipino' and 'Pilipino' mean differently nowadays. The latter refers to the people whose nationality is that of the Philippines. And that term is only used when using the indigenous language. The former on the other hand refers to the national and official language of the Philippines no matter what language he's conversing with. But when the conversation is being done in English, we always use the former term. -- jayzl 2142hrs; 06 May 09 (Manila Standard Time)

____ Wow! Love the rewrite. I think this hit the nail on the head. ~ Greg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.118.1 (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

On Filipino

Filipino is not the same as tagalog. In the Philippine Constitution(1987), it is stated that "Filipino" covers all dialects spoken in the Philippines

And clearly, that has not happened yet. And they're languages not dialects. --Chris 03:56, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC).

But it is happening --- but slowly. Words from other Philippine languages are finding their way into Filipino.

UP Diksyunaryong Filipino contains not only words borrowed from foreign languages but from other

Philippine languages as well. -- Daniw

Yeah, and since when have you ever used any non-Tagalog word when speaking your "Filipino"? Barely. Maybe for a few derogatory and slang terms. This "slowly" some of you are saying have been said to be happening years before. As of now? Still nowhere. I say this should be merged to the Tagalog article. Pansitkanton (talk) 06:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey! I need to see that. Filipino practically is Tagalog. I don't think the Constitution is written in Hiligaynon or Chabakano,etc. but Tagalog. They teach Tagalog grammar in 'Filipino' subjects.--Jondel 09:46, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Filipino in itself nothing but a standardized form of Tagalog patterned after the Metro Manila dialect. The law is never followed in the Philippines. Pansitkanton (talk) 06:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I've already added what the Philippine Constitution says about "Filipino" in the article. It does not say it "covers" all "dialects". It does not even say it "covers" all Philippine languages. It merely says that Filipino will be enriched by Philippine and other languages. Linguistically, that doesn't say much as all languages (until they become extinct) are evolving and are influenced by other languages. It is natural for Tagalog to be influenced by English and the other Philippine languages. The constitution does not say Filipino is Tagalog, but it practically is. Native Tagalog speakers can understand all sentences that are "Filipino" but speakers of other Philippine languages have to go to school to learn "Filipino" in order to fully understand them. I still have to see a "Filipino" class in which the instructor willingly allows the students to write their essays in any Philippine language and competently grade them accordingly. While the UP Diksyunaryong Filipino might have words from the other Philippine languages, it doesn't mean the dictionary will eventually list out the words of all the Philippine languages. While an English dictionary will have words from French and Spanish, it does not mean that the English language "covers" both French and Spanish. --wng

Re the infobox classification, not many people will argue against the notion that Filipino as it is spoken and written today is actually just Tagalog, and I myself agree that equating the two languages with each other is far from controversial. However, Filipino was created by law, as opposed to already being a previously existing concept, and the law does not define Filipino as based on Tagalog nor any other single language. Emphasis should instead be given in the body of the article that it is de facto Tagalog. Also, Ethnologue is not always correct, as one can read even in its WP article.

I reverted the edits. The law is not the sole point of view governing the relationship of Tagalog and Filipino; there are linguistic point of views to take into consideration. The Constitution can say that Filipino was invented by Martians and is to follow German spelling conventions but in practice it's still Tagalog. --Chris S. 05:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Then the infobox might as well then reflect the figures for Tagalog-speakers.

Yet another reason for calling the official language Filipino

It is said that there was an outcry from the other language groups , especially from the Cebuanos, when they heard that the official langaguage was to be Tagalog. So instead, they named it Filipino.--Jondel 12:09, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

We wouldn't be in a Democracy if we state OUR language as 'Cebuano' so as to 'Tagalog' ALONE. Philippines is not just an island country but of islets and archipelagos, traditions and cultures, and undoubtedly of boundless language also.Likum (talk) 09:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

As the article points out, In 1959, the language became known as Pilipino in an effort to dissociate it from the Tagalog ethnic group. One wonders how the discussion so far in this talk page section relates to improving the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge into Filipino language?

Aside from the statements I mention below, the article looks helpful but this article probably should be merged into the Filipino language article? Wng 11:50, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I write here not as a speaker of Tagalog or Filipino, but as a mere reader (and student of other languages). I agree that this article should be merged into "Filipino language" (or "Tagalog language"), because they are all "presented" to us as the same subject (not the same "thing"!). The distinction discussed here is clearly part of the language itself (particular issues, problematic, evolution...), whatever it comes to be named. But before merging them, this entry should be cleaned, and then be added some nice, clear examples for practical distinction between the two languages and further elucidation. Right now, as a reader who came here to know better, the whole thing seems too theoretical to me, not clearly reflecting how it works among speakers. There's a lot of text, but lacking visual references (the written language itself, maybe) and a broader comprehension. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.139.129.3 (talk) 01:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

Examples are quite hard to come up with, given that people, mostly academics, linguists, politicians, have differing views on what Filipino is or should be. But anyway, here goes. First I’ll give a couple of sentences in Tagalog on which I’ll be basing my examples in Filipino:

• Tagalog (formal/literary): Pakipawi ng mga sinulat ng matatangkad mong mga kamag-aral na sina Pedro at Mark sa palatanungang inihanda ni G. Tan.
• Tagalog (informal [sort of]/oral): Paki-erase ng mga sinulat ng matatangkad mong mga kaklaseng sina Pedro at Mark sa questionnaire na pinriper ni Ser Tan.

Note that Tagalog, spoken informally, may or may not use Spanish or English words, depending on the individual, so erase can in its place be bura and kaklase can be classmate (and when dealing with money, singko can be five or even lima). And now the examples in the different proposed forms of Filipino, as best I can:

• Filipino as Tagalog: [same as above two]
• Filipino as Taglish: Paki-erase ng mga sinulat ng tall classmates mong sina Pedro and Mark sa questionnaire na pinriper ni Ser Tan.
• Filipino as Taglish w/ Spanish: Pakibura ng mga sinulat ng matatangkad mong mga kaklaseng sina Pedro and Mark sa kwestyonaryong prinepara ni Ser Tan.
• Filipino as code-switching: Iyong mga sinulat ng tall classmates mong sina Pedro and Mark sa questionnaire, please erase them. Or What your tall clasmmates na sina Pedro and Mark wrote sa questionnaire, paki-erase.
• Filipino as lingua franca: [fluid; depends on where one is in the Philippines at the moment and how many indigenous languages one knows and the degree to which one is acquainted with Spanish words and English]
• Filipino as amalgamation of all indigenous Philippine languages: [something like Europanto; someone help me out here]

Hope that helps.

Dubious statements

Have tagged some statements that I believe needs to be verified: 1. 30% native speaker of Filipino, 80% second language speakers -- the census states almost close to 30% or even more than 30% Tagalog in the Philippines. If there's a difference between Filipino and Tagalog, then we should not state that 30% native speaker of Filipino. It is also confusing why 80% are second language speakers. Shouldn't we count only the remaining 70% (i.e., if they're native speakers, they shouldn't be counted as 2nd language speakers anymore)?

2. The statement that says there are arguably more native Filipino speakers than native Tagalog speakers should be corrected. There are definitely few native speakers of Filipino if we don't count the native Tagalog speakers. Some cities like Cotabato might be more Filipino-speaking but the total population of such places is definitely less than the Tagalog-speaking region. If it is established that a native Tagalog speaker is automatically a native Filipino speaker, then that may hold true, but the statement remains very confusing.

3. The statement that says Filipino competes in business is dubious. The number of printed materials and almost all business correspondence are in English. Filipino might be competing with English in local TV commercials; and in some media, like the radio, there is definitely more Filipino. However, one can only see English in receipts, checks, business forms, etc. There probably is a difference when one business establishment uses English, when it uses Filipino, and when it uses a regional language. However, saying they "compete" might not be accurate.

You are correct there. I would like to add that Filipino does compete with English in spoken business deals. But once it is put into writing, everything is translated into English.

4. Am not sure if we can still say that Tagalog has "20 letter vocabulary". There probably isn't any official standard left on how to write Tagalog after Filipino "replaced" Tagalog. Anyhow, the statement leads us to believe that anyone who uses the "f", "j", "v", or "z" sound may no longer be speaking Tagalog, which is not the case.

Officially, in a law approved in 1987 authored by Nene Pimentel (but which I forgot the number) there are now 28 letters. However the former Institute of National Language in the 60's did officially say that Pilipino had 20 phonemes.

--Wng 11:50, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Views on the Filipino/Tagalog debate

I actually asked my teachers (including the Filipino teachers) in Colegio San Agustin in Makati City about whether it was appropriate to treat Filipino as if it were Tagalog (apparently it was over the entire debate to rename the Tagalog Wikipedia). According to what I have heard, this was the general consensus among the teachers:

• Filipino is not the same as Tagalog
• Tagalog is a dialect of Filipino
• While non-Tagalog tongues like Cebuano are true languages in their own right, the general public view is that they are dialects (a Filipino speaker can regard Cebuano as a dialect and vice-versa)

While it is understandable that most Filipino speakers, especially in Metro Manila, refer to Filipino as Tagalog (the use of the term "Tagalog" is more prevalent that the term "Filipino"), those learning Filipino outside the Katagalugan in many cases use the term "Filipino".

It can prove that Filipino and Tagalog are distinct in the modern cultural sense, but there might not be substantial evidence that supports a full split between Tagalog and Filipino. Technically, both languages (or dialects or whatever you want to call it) are still, in my opinion, dependent on each other and on other languages.

--Akira123323 15:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

It should also be interesting to note that in many universities, professors are promulgating the view that Filipino is a dialect (or more accurately, a standardized version) of Tagalog, quite the opposite of what they’ve been ramming into students’ heads in elementary school.

Why is there no controversy in the Bahasa Indonesian article even though the same argument in this article is pratically applicable there? -Isaw

if you look at the history of the language, the root cause of the confusion is basically regional arrogance. Most specifically the reason stated by Jondel above where the Cebuanos would protest the use of Tagalog as the national language....so in order to avoid this, we created a term for the language as Pilipino (originally) then again renamed Filipino in 1972 then to add more confusion, the 1987 constitution's definition made it more ambiguous. But basically, it is Tagalog as it has evolved over time....It would be best just to name Tagalog as the national language, regardless of the protestations of those arrogant and proud Cebuanos....when a kapampangan native and a visayan native talk to one another, what language do they use? it is either english or tagalog or a combination of both...not cebuano, so they should accept this fact then let's move on....139.130.237.18 00:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Regional arrogance? That's very insulting. I'd say "Manila Colonialism". We can't move on unless the Tagalog race stops imposing its self-proclaimed ethnic superiority. 121.97.59.70 (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Word. Pansitkanton (talk) 13:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

This mis-use of the term "dialect" goes back to the early American era when ambitious Tagalogs sought to convince American authorities who had taken up shop in their home town (Manila, center of the Tagalog region) that colonial rule could be entrusted to them because the land was really a mono-culture - that a Tagalog speaker could travel the land and master any regional language and communicate "within a fortnight" (2 weeks) - hence all Philippine languages are dialects of Tagalog. How ironic that, after 70 years of an vigorously enforced single-language policy, that, according to proponents of linguistic genocide, the nation is apparently less able to communicate effectively today than it was, apparently, a hundred years ago. Today, this bit of institutional ignorance (about the meaning of "dialect") continues because ignorance is what is required to sustain neo-colonialism under "Filipino" rulers. 65.57.245.11 04:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC) Tim Harvey, 10 May 2007

__________

Above seems to be stating that Tagalog is being enriched as other words are introduced from other languages, including words originating from other Philippines languages.

- It would be interesting to know specifically which words are being added to Tagalog as it naturally progresses. - It would also be interesting know which words were added to Tagalog to create Official Filipino.

This could lead to a few outcomes:

1. The natural progression of Tagalog is approximately the same the official definition of Filipino. 2. The natural progression of Tagalog is different than Official Filipino.

If item 1 is correct, Filipino is linguistically approximately to Tagalog. If item 2 is correct, Official Filipino is linguistically different than Tagalog.

This is important to the debate because there seems to be no data referenced in any of this article what the specific linguistic differences are between Tagalog and Filipino. We only know there are official linguistic differences. We do not seem to have evidence that people identifying as speaking Tagalog and Filipino are aware of the linguistic differences, if any. However, to be distinct languages from a linguistic view (not an official RP view) there MUST be differences between the spoken languages.

If Filipino and Tagalog are linguistically distinct, we should try to understand to what extent they are distinct.

Language: Linguistically, distinct languages are defined to be mutually unintelligible. That is, a speaker of one language cannot understand a speaker of the other language.

Dialect: Linguistically, if people that are speaking Tagalog and Filipino understand each other, they are speaking mutually intelligible languages. Linguistically, by definition, this would make Tagalog and Filipino separate dialects.

This has the following implications from a linguistic perspective:

If Filipino and Tagalog are distinct languages meeting the mutual unintelligibility criteria, than there are Filipino words that are not understood in Tagalog and vice versa. Any person speaking both languages, if they are in fact distinct linguistically, must know which words are found in Filipino and not in Tagalog, and vice versa. Any person that claims to speak both Filipino and Tagalog as separate languages without knowing which words are mutually unintelligible cannot factually know both languages. Any such person is speaking either Tagalog or Filipino, and does not know which one they speak. Or, they claim to speak both languages because they believe both languages are the same language. If a speaker of two languages claims that the two languages are the same language, what we have are two names for the same language - not two languages. Again,this is linguistic definition, not official RP definition.

If Filipino and Tagalog are spoken dialects of the same language, Filipino and Tagalog would sound different but would be mutually intelligible. Since the vast majority of speakers consider Filipino and Tagalog to be the same or extremely similar, then we MUST be dealing with a dialect difference, or no difference. We are definitely NOT dealing with a language difference.

We know that Filipino as an official language that is distinct from Tagalog. The issue at hand is whether Filipino is a spoken language distinct from Tagalog. Let's examine what is needed to be able to identify that Filipino is a spoken language separate from Tagalog.

1. If a group of Tagalog-only speakers are brought together with a group of Filipino-only speakers, and attempted to communicate, they could not. To be distinct languages, from a linguistic perspective, Tagalog and Filipino must be mutually unintelligible. 2. There would likely be an existence of people that are bi-lingual Tagalog and Filipino. That implies that they would know one language first, then learn the other language. 3. A group of bi-lingual speakers of Tagalog and Filipino would be able to generally agree upon the linguistic differences between the spoken languages.

Can anyone point to specific examples of these conditions? If we cannot find any of these conditions, there is no case to be made that Filipino exists as a separate language from Tagalog. Therefore...

The official definition of Filipino as a separate and distinct language contradicts linguistic definitions for distinct languages.

Let's look at the educational system a little deeper. Understand that if any person's first language is not Filipino, such a person that comes to know Filipino must come to know Filipino as an additional language, and must also not be learning Tagalog language at the same time. If a person can learn Filipino and Tagalog simultaneously, they are not distinct languages.

I have spoken with many people (Cebuano, Ilocano, Ilonggo, etc.) that learned "Filipino" in school as a second language, yet report that they understand Tagalog. If Filipino and Tagalog are distinct languages, this could not occur. A speaker of Cebuano that knows both Tagalog and Filipino would know three distinct languages, not two.

Existence of Dictionaries

If Filipino exists as a distinct spoken language with millions of speakers, then one could find a Filipino dictionary in Filipino, in all cases distinct from Tagalog.

- I cannot find a Filipino dictionary written in Filipino with Filipino definitions.

- I cannot find a translation dictionary for any language of Philippines to Filipino as distinct from Tagalog.

- I have found a few online "Filipino Dictionaries" that are in fact Tagalog English translation dictionaries.

- I can find translation dictionaries for other Philippine languages and English. One can find translation dictionaries such as Aklanon Englinsh,Hilagaynon(Ilonggo) Enlish, Waray Waray English, Bikol English, Ilokano English, etc.

- Sites that have collected various translation dictionaries for Philippine languages refer to either Filipino OR Tagalog dictionaries, but not both! Here is an example at bansa.org.

If there are truly 30 million speakers of Filipino as a distinct language, it seems hard to comprehend why we can't find a widely used dictionary for the language that is separate from Tagalog. Because there is an official difference between Tagalog and Filipino, there may be an official Filipino dictionary somewhere - it just isn't used.

The fact that Filipino and Tagalog speakers cannot identify what the differences are means there are insufficient linguistic difference to categorize Filipino as a separate language, and that the number of Filipino speakers equals the number of Tagalog speakers.

This suggests there are really two Filipino languages that mutually unintelligible:

• Filipino as defined by those identifying themselves as speakers of Filipino. These speakers perceive Tagalog and Filipino to be the same language. They do not speak official Filipino, they speak Filipino that is the same as Tagalog. This Tagalog / Filipino is not the same as Official Filipino, because Tagalog / Filipino and Official Filipino are mutually unintelligible languages. Tagalog / Filipino speakers.

• Filipino as defined by RP. Official Filipino and Tagalog are mutually unintelligible. Official Filipino has zero speakers.

I propose that there are two entries for Filipino language:

1. Tagalog / Filipino language. Speakers are the same as Tagalog speakers.

2. Official Filipino language. An official language that is universally unintelligible with zero speakers. Often confused with Tagalog / Filipino.

__________

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.118.1 (talk) 18:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yet another view/proposed view

Filipino-

The lingua franca (based on Tagalog ) which is spoken all over the Philippines which is gradually being embedded by Ilocano, Cebuano and other local dialects because of frequent use and is constitutionally endorsed. For example, the 'Tagalog' spoken in Cebu or Mindanao, or Ilocos which contains many Cebuano or Ilocano words.

ie, The 'Tagalog' not spoken in or outside of Metro Manila or Tagalog regions.

Tagalog -

THE original pure unadulterated local language spoken in the Tagalog regions especially in Batangas, Laguna, etc. Not so much what is spoken in Metro Manila which is more 'Taglish'.

--Jondel 00:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Reminds me of Tuscan, which eventually became Standard Italian.

Here's my take:

• Filipino (or Pilipino) - it borrows words not just on local languages but foreign languages as well. And it uses 28 letters. For example: Magpapaxerox ako is Filipino.
• Tagalog - It is the pure form, it uses 26 letters, and it doesn't borrow words and letters from other languages.

Circa 1900 10:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I think this is not much of a "versus". Tagalog should be easily defined as the language of the ethnic group. Then defining Filipino is the problem. It was its purpose to unite the ethnic diversity in a way. As such it is a lingua franca. Then what is harder to explain is the diversity of Filipino as it is for any other lingua franca i guess.

Although these forms of speech are related, Filipino is much more diverse than Tagalog. "Nagkain ka na ba?" is frequently heard in Mindanao, but is wrong in ethnic Tagalog.

Shouldn't be a problem. When the Tuscan language was chosen to be the national language of the newly created Kingdom of Italy in 1861 and renamed to "Italian" it didn't cause much of a problem. When "melayu pesar" was renamed to Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian Language) by the new Republic of Indonesia and made the official language the move was praised by the people looking for a way to unite themselves knowing that they speak different languages at home. Only in the Philippines can we find this confusing situation. It seems to me everyone wants their own language to be the national language, including every ayta, lumad, and igorot. To recall a popular joke, it's no wonder the devil did not put a lid on the Philippine cage in hell - he knew that Filipinos would naturally pull each other down. Just my thoughts. - fbg

Actually, there are other languages that present this kind of problem as well. One example is Catalan/Valencian. Most people of Valencia will say that their language is different from the Catalans although they practically understand each other. This is also the case of Serbian and Croatian. Nasugbu batangas (talk) 13:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I can see your point. Cavour (whose native language was French) used Italian in his public speeches, even if he often sounded stilted and ridiculous. That’s patriotism right there.

The Tagalog "spoken" in these areas you're saying are confirmation bias that they indeed are speaking Tagalog "sprinkled with non-Tagalog words" when they're not. They might have lexical similarity with Tagalog but most likely they're not speaking the language but their own (Cebuano and other Visayan languages are taxonomically related to Tagalog under Central Philippine languages), so it is not unlikely to perceive their speech as what you would want to think it could be. Pansitkanton (talk) 06:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree. I'm guessing the original posters are either not Filipino or are native Tagalog speakers who do not understand any of the other languages in the Philippines.

The claim that the difference between Tagalog and Filipino is orthography is patently ridiculous for the reason that all modern Filipino languages use the borrowed Latin script (except for the Moro languages in western Mindanao which also use the Arabic script). Artificially limiting the spelling options of one over another does not make them two different languages. Furthemore the absence of some sounds in Tagalog does not mean they are absent in other Filipino languages. F and V, for example, are present in a lot of other indigenous languages (notably that of the ethnic groups in the highlands, e.g. the Ifugao, Ivatan, and the Lumad).

The only difference between "J" and "Dy" or "X" and "Ks" is that "Dy" and "Ks" are self-conscious attempts at trying to "nativize" the words by adopting an exotic spelling based on a prediction of how an illiterate tribesman might mispronounce a foreign word. It's demeaning and a particularly ridiculous thing to teach to children. That "airplane" is an evil foreign word, while "erpleyn" is Filipino-friendly because it sounds just like how Juan, the jeepney driver, would say it. Never mind that Juan never went to school.

Furthermore, claiming that Tagalog is widely spoken outside of the Tagalog region is false. It's widely understood, but not widely spoken if at all. I've never heard anyone use it in everyday speech, except perhaps in school. Nagkain ka na ba? is also NOT frequently heard in Mindanao. The person who said that is likely a Tagalog immigrant (probably in Davao) who is beginning to learn the Bisaya language structure but still inadvertently uses them together with Tagalog vocabulary. Anyone talking like that would be immediately recognized as a "Tagaligz". It's grammatically incorrect in most Visayan languages as well (Hiligaynon being a notable exception), because Visayan almost always uses the ba particle before the pronoun, even in interrogative sentences. Thus it would be Nagkaon na ba ka?, though that wording is less common than Nikaon na ba ka?, the direct equivalent of Tagalog/Filipino Kumain ka na ba?-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 13:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The linguistic (scientific) view

Filipino is a dialect of the Tagalog spoken in Manila. Manila Tagalog was the base of the national language and the tradition continued via various renamings since its appointment as national language in 1937.

Tagalog is any Tagalog variety - not just the "pure" Tagalog that people claim is spoken in Bulacan, Batangas, or whatever. Yes, even the Tagalog of Metro Manila is Tagalog. It's Tagalog with English borrowings which can also be termed Taglish. It's like franglais - French doesn't cease to be French simply because English words are present. Tagalog has a lot of Spanish words, yet we don't call it Tagpañol. Tagalog pa, di ba?

Also, the vocabulary is not the sole identifer of a language. The grammar plays a huge role too. Unless someone can provide conclusive evidence to contrary, Filipino is gramatically identical to Tagalog. I am highly skeptical of people who claim that there is a difference between Filipino & Tagalog. The proof's right there in plain sight. --Chris S. 04:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Not only is Filipino a dialect of Tagalog, but it's an artificial dialect, at that, with NO NATIVE SPEAKERS, and artificially created in state controlled universities as an instrument of central governmental rule. Furthermore, the so-called "incorporations" of other Philippine languages is largely limited to proper nouns of landmarks and the like from the region of the language. At last count, Cebuano, a language that has roughly as many native speakers as Tagalog, has a mere 800 words incorporated in Filipino, nearly all proper nouns from the region. The sham that is promoted and carried out by the central government is shameful in its casual abuse of the truth. It rivals any of the social "re-educational" programs of Communist countries, and it is clear cutting the rich cultural tapestry of the Philippines as surely as the once lush forests have been stripped. Where is the pride? 04:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC) Tim Harvey

I think from the perspective of Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino and many professional linguists in the Philippines (e.g. members of LSP), spoken Filipino is a quite natural speech variety, not artificial at all. Now written Filipino is more arguably the result of a planned intervention, starting with the shift to a more inclusive 28-letter orthography; this was away from the 20-letter norm defined by Rizal and his contemporaries that has been in use since the 1880's (which adopted k in place of the Spanish ca, que, qui, co, cu). There are native speakers of Filipino, mainly the children of non-Tagalog parents who grew up speaking Filipino. They might be unwilling to call themselves Tagalog speakers because they are not native Tagalogs, and can't claim to speak "as well as" natives of Tagalog provinces like Bulacan or Batangas (modern Filipino has significant simplifications of affixation compared to classic Tagalog or Lope K. Santos' Balarila, as most Filipino readers discover when trying to read novels from the golden age of Tagalog fiction (around 1902-1915, I think). If you visit an ethnically-mixed city like Baguio City (where there are a lot more Pangasinan, Ilocano and Igorot residents than Tagalogs), you will find that school children use Filipino in the schoolyard, it has displaced Ilocano which was the lingua franca there 30-40 years ago. Many of those children speak Filipino better than they speak the language of their parents. A similar situation holds in some cities of Mindanao, where Filipino is displacing earlier lingua francas (Cotabato City, and some parts of Davao City come to mind). I think those speakers might casually call the language they speak Tagalog (as in "marunong magtagalog"), but they would be uncomfortable about claiming that it is correct or good Tagalog, since they struggled to understand Balagtas' Florante at Laura and the translations of Rizal's novels when they were in high school. Perhaps it is better to say that spoken Filipino and spoken Tagalog are dialects for each other, with the language names competing for dominance (and the name Filipino is likely to win in the long run, since it is used officially and in the school system, but the name Tagalog is taking decades to fade away). It seems they are also distinct written norms, I don't think there is any way to define written Tagalog as excluding Balagtas and the golden age Tagalog novels, but many Filipino writers would agree that those writing styles are "too Tagalog" (or too purista)to be an acceptable norm for written Filipino. - Fbkintanar (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

So what is the current best practice about using ISO-639-1 "tl" (with or without suffixes) for Tagalog and Filipino? Many do that, and it seems strange that Tagalog should have a two-letter code when its official variant (if that's what it is) doesn't. I've also seen many movies listed as "language: Filipino/Tagalog", as if the people who tagged them couldn't agree on how to call it. I don't think these are bilingual movies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.10.135 (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Not just a grammatical error

Non-Tagalogs usually (prefer) use kabalikang ayos-type of sentence ("Na-low batt ang cellphone.") instead of karaniwang ayos ("Ang cellphone ay na-low batt.").

Other differences of Tagalog language of non-native Tagalogs and native Tagalogs:

• Dropping "ang": "Low batt (ang) cellphone mo." (non-native) - "Low batt na ang cellphone mo." ~ "Ang cellphone mo ay na-low batt." (native)
• Daw/raw, din/rin: "Malaki daw bahay. Maliit daw ang kwarto." - "Malaki raw bahay. Maliit daw ang kwarto."
• Sya/nya, ito/nito, iyan/niyan: "Matagal syang masira. Makapal ang cover nya." - "Matagal ito/iyan [bago] masira. Makapal ang cover nito/niyan."
• Reduplication: "Nakakalito ang daan pauwi."" - "Nakalilito ang daan pauwi."

This is similar to the case of English and Philippine English. First examples should be the Filipino language. --Filipinayzd 19:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure that the kabalikang anyo has the predicate in the beginning? I think it is the other way around as it is more common (hence karaniwang anyo) to put the predicate in the beginning. After all, Tagalog/Filipino is classified as a VSO language. Nasugbu batangas (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Needs a cleanup

Is not pertaining to the manual of style or general format of the language articles already present. Encyclopedist (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't need one, really. Filipino was created in 1987. Anything before that is Tagalog language. --Chris S. 22:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is highly suspect, especially with phrases like "[t]he government policy of linguistic and cultural genocide." The entire article takes a stridently anti-government tone. While it may accurately reflect the feelings of the contributors, it can hardly be described as neutral. Lincmad 17:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Mention of Tuscan Italian?

(mirroring that of the Tuscan dialect of Italian)

Could someone who's qualified to evaluate what that claim is about either explain it or remove it? --babbage 23:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

In essence, a particular dialect is chosen as the standard due to whatever prestige it may hold. It happened to the Tuscan dialect of Italian, which is what standard Italian is based on. Other comparisons - Parisian dialect of French, Hannover dialect of German, London dialect of English English, Midwestern dialect of American English, Tokyo dialect of Japanese, etc. In the Philippines' case, the dialect of Manila was chosen and not those of say, Batangas, Bulacan, or Marinduque. --Chris S. 03:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Filipino is a fictional language

Filipino exists in the constitution. Also "Filipino" language you'd hear and see are Tagalog. The only "Filipino" words are those words that were borrowed form other language, like beysbol. --Howard the Duck 06:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Not fictional but artificial

Quezon gathered many words including visayan words. I know because I saw and used 'tindig'(too stand) in conversation in Manila which I found in the Pilipino (not visayan)dictionary. People said I was bisaya.--Jondel 07:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but you may not have realized it but you were probably called "bisaya" as an insult. BTW, Tagalogs aren't the only "people" - Visayans are too! BTW, Quezon may have "gathered many words," but only 800 have made their way into Filipino, and most of those are proper nouns from the region. 04:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC) Tim Harvey

Enrichment

The use of words such as beysbol and kompyuter enrich the existing language, not create another one (just as the use of elevator and trailer in North America do not create another language different from the one used in Britain).

______

It seems to me that if an invention has existed for only a short time, the first word used to describe the thing carries through out languages. In other words, baseball was called baseball at the time of invention, and the world hasn't gotten around to making up new words to describe it. It isn't necessary. Computers are computers all over the world for the same reason. These words aren't borrowed words - they are new words to describe new things.

_______ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.118.1 (talk) 04:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

On Italian and German dialects

Well, it’s true. While one may argue with another over the nature of Venetian or Bavarian, the fact is the Italian or German man on the street will tell you that these are dialects, or at least are popularly known as. It’s a political thing. I’m removing the tag.

Doubled consonants

Many, particularly in the academe, have taken up the position that Filipino ought to be an amalgamation of all indigenous languages based on a Tagalog core grammar, so basically we’re talking here about convergence of vocabulary, phonology, etc. One of the unique features of Ilokano phonology (and possibly those of other indigenous languages) however is doubled consonants, and I’ve always wondered whether such an element would also be incorporated into this proposed form of the Filipino language, and whether its proponents have indeed been doubling consonants whenever deemed appropriate.

Tagalog

But Tagalog is just also a dialect, right? It's quite confusing if the language "covers all dialects..." --210.213.180.106 14:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

No, Tagalog is a language. So are Cebuano, Ilokano, Hiligaynon, Bikol, Kapampangan, etc. I don't understand what you mean by confusing. Care to elaborate? --Chris S. 23:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

So, do we need a Filipino grammar article?

So, now we have an article on Tagalog and one on Filipino. Can they share one article about grammar, or do we need two? I think one makes more sense, it might just need a few notes added to the Tagalog grammar article for the cases (if there are any) where Tagalog grammar is not the same as Filipino grammar. Can Filipino grammar be a redirect to Tagalog grammar? Gronky 19:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

A redirect would be fine (I just made one) because Tagalog & Filipino are identical in their grammar. Since Tagalog has a broader scope, if any major pecularities in Filipino grammar can be found, they can simply be addressed in a section. --Chris S. 01:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

_____

Until it's determined that Filipino is a spoken language, and who actually speaks it, it will be nearly impossible to have an article on the grammar.

____

I think many contemporary writers choose a more colloquial style of writing that they consciously think of as Filipino, rather than a more traditional Tagalog style that follows the stylistics of the golden age of Tagalog novels or Amado V. Hernandez. Lualhati Bautista and Jun Cruz Reyes are examples. I think it would be useful to have a page that describes the differences between colloquial and written Filipino (including the language of scriptwriters in the broadcast media) from the older tradition of Tagalog writing. I also think it might be difficult to find published sources about that, the research is still to be done. But if somebody is knowledgeable, perhaps they could compile a list of references and start a page. I think there are quite significant differences in grammar -- but not total exclusions. What might be poetic or literary in the grammar of a consciously Tagalog work would be archaic or obscure in a Filipino work. What is normal or unmarked in Filipino might be substandard or only a spoken form in Tagalog. - Fbkintanar (talk) 22:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Moved from article

Most of these sounded more like debate transcriptions.

On Filipino being by law any autochtonous Austronesian language spoken in any urban center in the country

This is problematic, since Filipino is by law not based on Tagalog but is rather the language spoken in urban centers throughout the country and not any particular ethnic language, as the law would presumably tend to define a wider range of speakers as first language speakers of Filipino rather than second language speakers of Tagalog. The children of interethnic marriages in many parts of the country, even where both parents are non-Tagalogs, would be more fluent in Filipino than any other Philippine language or English, and yet they may reside far from the ethnic region of the Tagalogs. Filipino would then be described as a legitimate and vibrant language, and that in the various regional dialectal variations of Filipino there is already a significant number of regional-language words in use. Admittedly these regional dialectal usages are seldom popularized nationally, especially in comparison to the flood of loanwords from English, but the spoken language basis for such a process of popularization and dissemination is in place.

First-language Filipino as opposed to Tagalog speakers

This growth in “first-language speakers” is in part because of the rapid growth of the Metromanileño population, mainly through the influx of non-Tagalogs themselves, whose children become first-language Tagalog-speakers; but it is also because there is a shift in lingua franca to Filipino even in parts of the country that are non-Tagalog. Cotabato City is populated by a mixture of Hiligaynon-, Ilocano-, Zamboangueño-, Maguindanao-, Tagalog-, and Cebuano-language speakers, with no ethnic group dominating. In the past, people might have naturally turned to Cebuano as a lingua franca since it remains the most important lingua franca in virtually all of Mindanao. Yet in fact, Cotabato City has turned to Tagalog as its lingua franca, although it is not an ethnically Tagalog city (as if it mattered; if it did, Filipino Anglophones would stop speaking their English mother-tongue because they're not ethnically English). Children growing up in Cotabato City would then, according to lingua-franca advocates, be best considered native speakers of Filipino, not of Tagalog nor of Cebuano. A similar situation is true in Baguio, where Ilocano used to be the lingua franca among the ethnic Pangasinan, Ilocano, assorted Igorot and Tagalog residents, the language of the public school playground is now Filipino. It should be remembered, however, that nowhere in the body of Philippine laws is Tagalog defined as the basis of Filipino, and that the language of any major urban area in the Philippines is that which defines Filipino.

Perhaps

[P]erhaps only history will tell which account of Tagalog and Filipino is a better characterization of the current situation and dynamic.

Standardization of Filipino based on the NCR dialect of Tagalog

Tagalog as spoken in the capital, however, is difficult to use as a standard, but only should such an enterprise be willed. It is rapidly and constantly evolving, and there is no dictionary or guidebook to define what is proper usage or which words are considered to be officially part of the language. This is compounded by the problem that middle- and upper-class Filipinos are bilingual or multilingual, predominantly using English, Taglish (Tagalog heavily mixed with English), or Englog in everyday conversation. The latter two essentially are used for informal communication, however, and it is generally not acceptable in formal written communication for government, academia, or business.

Ethnic language

The number of native speakers of Tagalog is arguably fewer than the first language speakers of Filipino, because non-Tagalog residents in cities like Cotabato City, which are some distance away from the Tagalog regions of central and southern Luzon, may have Filipino as their first language, but be reluctant to call themselves native speakers of Tagalog if only because they are (ethnically) not native Tagalogs,{{dubious}} though this does not explain how Chinese Filipinos, Spanish Filipinos, and other non-Austronesian groups can claim to be native speakers of Tagalog and not native speakers of Fujianese, Spanish, or even Basque. Probably anybody who is a second-language speaker of Filipino can also be called a second-language speaker of Tagalog. The difference is perhaps more significant in the norms of writing and speech than in the number of persons identifiable as speakers of one language variant or the other. According to the Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino the absence of the phoneme /f/ in the Tagalog language is the main proof that Filipino isn't simply Tagalog but a language heavily based on Tagalog and but influenced by all the other languages existing within the islands. Some even argue that words like the Hiligaynon bana (husband) is included in the dictionary published by the Komisyon as a standard vocabulary. During the time when the official language was still Pilipino (before it was replaced in the 1987 Constitution by Filipino) the tendency was towards purism (akin to that of the Icelandic Language Institute), even trying to replace words of Spanish or English origin with new artificially coined words that are based on Tagalog.

Ethnic neutrality

Because referring to the Filipino language as “Tagalog”, which is also the name of an ethnic group, it is a politically sensitive issue to claim that Filipino is just Tagalog. As a name for a language variety, the word Tagalog is non-neutral and may be understood as privileging a particular ethnic group. Filipino is arguably a more neutral term, taken from the name of the whole nation rather than just one ethnic group.

Filipino as distinct from or identical to Tagalog

Should we accept that Filipino and Tagalog are two different languages, Filipino should theoretically be labelled the High Language and Tagalog the Low Language. But this doesn't happen in practice. Most Filipinos residing in the region would say they are speaking in Tagalog, whether speaking in formal situations or not. In fact, the only place where there is no confusion on which language is spoken is in the classroom, where everybody would say they are speaking in Filipino. But the moment they step out of the room they would once again say that they spoke in Tagalog.

According to the KWF, the very reason that the Filipino language begins with the letter F makes it undoubtedly different from Tagalog. The KWF stresses the fact that the letter 'f' (pronounced as the phoneme /f/) does not appear in the Tagalog alphabet. True to this fact, Filipinos often would have difficulty in pronoucing the phoneme /f/, nearly always replacing it with the phoneme /p/.

Ideals, and dialects vs. languages

This is not only based on variation, since there are Tagalog has other dialects, but it is arguably the most important dimension for orthography, standardization and intellectualization of language. This view is based on the selection of Tagalog as the national language in 1937, akin to the selection in the 1860s of Tuscan as the core base of the Italian language. (Note that in Philippine English usage, regional languages (or what linguists, both Filipino and international, and most foreigners would call a distinct regional language) are usually referred to as dialects, even though there is a clear recognition of different regional ethnic groups known to have mutually unintelligible forms of speech. For most of the world, two varieties of speech are different languages if they are mutually unintelligible; but in the Philippines they are often called dialects even though their relationship is known to be so distant as to be mutually unintelligible and that their speakers do not consider themselves to be speakers of one language. This is also the case in Germany and in Italy, where native languages apart from the standard are termed as dialects.)

On amalgamation

In an interview made to the former KWF Commissioner Nita Buenaobra in the celebration of the National Language Month, August 2003, she commented that although one cannot call Filipino an artificial language because the vocabulary has meanings in another language (in this case the different autochtonous Austronesian languages), one can still call it a pidgin because it is supposed to be a hybrid of all the existing languages in the country (including Spanish, Arabic, and the different Chinese dialects). (The words of several artificial languages, though, do have meanings in natural languages.) She even cited that, being a language spoken by the whole archipelago, one can find native speakers of Filipino in the Visayan-language dominated island of Mindanao, with the city of General Santos being its centre. Ironically, this view given by a former government official would not fully conform to the description of Filipino as defined in the Constitution and relevant laws.

The problem with amalgamation is that if all the words and, to a lesser extent, the grammatical structures, from other Philippine languages are to be included in Filipino, then the purpose of a lingua franca is forfeited: people speaking the Ilocano variety of Filipino would not be able to communicate effectively with someone speaking the Cebuano variety. It could be argued however that a common core lexicon could emerge over time as a result of certain words or grammatical or phonological structures (such as double consonants in Ilocano, etc.) being widely and continuously used while certain others being abandoned, a case of linguistic natural selection.

Recognition of Cebuano

Debate moved from Cebuano language.

The use of Tagalog as a basis for Pilipino in the 1940s drew the most criticism from Cebuano speakers. To some extent, the use of Tagalog was actively resisted. For instance, after an attempt by the central government to enforce the use of Tagalog as the language of instruction in all public schools in the eighties, the governor of Cebu initiated the singing of the Philippine national anthem in Cebuano rather than in Pilipino (Tagalog) in the island province of Cebu. This resistance was not intended to undermine the country's national unity. On the part of the Cebuanos, it was mostly a protest against "imperial Manila" and a clamor for linguistic and regional recognition.

In fairness, the selection of Tagalog was based on (a) its being the language of the revolution against Spain, (b) it having the largest literature among Philippine languages at the time of the selection, (c) being understood outside of its set of native speakers more than other Philippine languages, and (d) being the language of Manila which was the capital of the country at the time the selection was made (Cebu was once the capital, other cities that once held the title were Quezon City and Baguio). The head of the selection panel, Dr. Jaime de Veyra, was a Waray. There was one representative for each of the major languages in the country. It could be argued, though, that then President Quezon was a Tagalog and could have exerted undue influence upon the selection process. However such a suggestion is highly speculative.

The Cebuano desire for special recognition finds support from the following arguments:

1. Historically, Cebu is the first and oldest city in the Philippines, an ancient hub of trade with the Arabs and the Chinese. It was also the first city established by Legazpi. Long before Manila fell into the hands of the Spanish in the 16th century, Cebu was already an established trading and military post for the Spaniards.
2. Linguistically, Cebuano is the country's second most widely-used language. During the period after independence until the mid-seventies, it was the largest linguistic group. This however is irrelevant as Tagalog-speakers have traditionally produced the most extensive body of written literature compared to speakers of other Philippine languages, which is the most important factor in selecting the core basis for the formation of a national language. Whether or not that language is the language of the capital or not is immaterial (as in the cases of Malaysia, Indonesia, Italy, etc., whose national languages are not based on the speech of Kuala Lumpur, Jakarta, Rome, etc.).
3. Strategically and commercially, Cebu is the alternate gateway to Manila due to its geographical location, adding significance to its language. Cebuano is the native language of the majority in more regions than Tagalog, being the language with the most native speakers in Region VII (Central Visayas), Region IX (Zamboanga Peninsula), Region X (Northern Mindanao), Region XI (Davao Region), Caraga Region, and Region XII (SOCCSKSARGEN). There are also significant numbers of speakers in Region VI (Western Visayas, mostly in San Carlos City and neighboring areas) and Region VIII (Eastern Visayas, mostly in western Leyte and Southern Leyte). By comparison, Tagalog is the language of the majority in the NCR, Region IV-A, Region IV-B, and Region III (Central Luzon, where Kapampangan and Ilocano also dominate some areas).
4. Politically, since the colonial days of the Spanish and Americans, the Cebuanos have resented perceived "arrogance" from Manila. In the Marcos years, Cebu, with the exception of Durano-held Danao, was regarded as a staunch center of opposition. However, making Cebu the center of everything Filipino does not erase the "arrogance" but only transfers that trait to the Cebuanos and their new Imperial Cebu.

"amalgamation" theory needs citation

I added a citation request and it has been removed. My request was for a citation about the section titled "Filipino as an amalgamation of all languages used in the Philippines". I have never encountered anyone who supports this interpretation of what Filipino means. Some people suppor the idea that Filipino is Tagalog plus borrowed words from every Philippine language, or from all the large ones, but that is not an amalgamation of languages used in the Philippines. An amalgamation of all languages used in the Philippines would create a language with 50+ words for "house" (bahay, balay, bayay, etc.), 50+ sets of verb conjugation systems, etc. Nobody actually suggests that, so it is misleading for the article to claim that this is one theory of what "Filipino" means. Unless someone has a citation to prove that this "amalgamation" theory is commonly believed, that section cannot stay in it's current form, IMO. Gronky 08:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe "amalgamation" was just a bad choice of words, maybe the writer didn't mean the sense that I assumed. So I've changed that section to be a "blend" of all languages used in the Philippines. Gronky 08:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

blend is probably better than amalgamation. I think the key lies in the section intro, however, which asserts that there continue to exist alternative proposals. The section then goes on to present subsections offering various alternatives. I believe that the assertion that the various alternatives mentioned are actually serious alternative proposals ought to be supported by cites. -- Boracay Bill 01:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is yet another ignorance perpetuated by Tagalog promoters. The inclusion of 800 mostly proper nouns no more make Cebuano a dialect of Tagalog/Filipino than does the inclusion of "yoyo," "Manila," "boondocks/boonies" and other Philippine words in English make it a dialect of Tagalog/Filipino. Why do people of the Philippines, who are otherwise smart, capable people, refuse to use these qualities when it comes to reasoning about their language(s)? 04:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC) Tim Harvey

Way to go 125.212.23.33!

The last edits by 125.212.23.33 were good. :) --Bentong Isles 01:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Section: Alternative views and proposals

This comment follows on comments in the "amalgamation" theory needs citation section above. IMO, everything in the Alternative views and proposals section needs citation. The entire section reads like original research opinionizing. -- Boracay Bill 11:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

I've hidden several "biased" sections in my opinion. If anyone has an intention of keeping them, please add references or I will delete them in a week. -23prootie 08:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Contradictions

Filipino has adopted sounds that are not native in the Philippines such as F. It also claims that it is derived from other languages. If it is, then how come that until now, Filipino has failed to adopt the guttural e sound of Pangasinan language.

E is not included in the 8 (C, F, J, Ñ, Q, V, X and Z). The rest (20): Tagalog's ABAKADA. These letters cannot be used in coining or "Filipinizing" non-Tagalog words (includes foreign and local languages). --Filipinayzd 19:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The creation of a national language is being used to promote a national identity. This national identity is centered on Manila (Tagalog). But inhabitants of Philippine geographic space must recognize that this model failed; look at Metro Manila. The survival of identities in the Philippines, including this so-called "Filipino", in this age of globalization requires the promotion of diversity. The homogenization of the Philippines through the promotion of a single language is in conflict with this diversity, and therefore, not sustainable in the context of globalization. It is hypocritical to promote "Filipino", at the same time, suppress other languages such as: Pangasinan, Cebuano, and Hiligaynon; unless, the promotion of "Filipino" is seen from the context of Tagalog nationalism. 218.110.217.106 17:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This page is for discussion of how to improve the article, not for general discussion about Tagalog/Filipino/Philippines. How do you suggest we improve the article? Gronky 18:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

"Filipino language" is very much connected with "Tagalog" and the "Philippines". Since it is very much connected, the improvement of the article is closely connected with the discussion on "Tagalog" and the "Philippines." The article on the Filipino language will be improved if there is background and the various propaganda being promoted on its account and if there is a clarification on what it really is. Filipino language is a wolf in sheep's clothing; it is a tool of Tagalog nationalism under the disguise of Filipino nationalism. 218.110.217.106 13:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

And what about English language? Does it mean we shouldn't use it siince it may promote British or American nationalism. I think you don't get the situation in the Philippines. The country has over 150 languages, and if all of those has official status, then it would be difficult to implement. And I think you don't realize that the Tagalogs are the biggest victims here since their language and their culture are hijacked for the sake of the national identity. Yes all Filipinos may speak their language but now they have less distinctive features unlike the Cebuanos or Ilocanos. 23prootie 07:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Tagalogs are the biggest victims here since their language and their culture are hijacked for the sake of the national identity. I agree. --Filipinayzd 19:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This is turning into a blogish discussion, and I hesitated about commenting; just a short one...

I don't follow the part above which says, "and if all of those has official status, then it would be difficult to implement."

Regarding "having official status", AFAIK, that's a constitutional thing.

Article XIV, Section 7 of the constitution says: "For purposes of communication and instruction, the official languages of the Philippines are Filipino and, until otherwise provided by law, English. [para break] The regional languages are the auxiliary official languages in the regions and shall serve as auxiliary media of instruction therein." I take the implication of that as being that the national government will use these official language for those purposes. -- Boracay Bill 21:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The issue here is not about official status per se, but about people complaining why their language isn't official. And I commented that if all Philippine languages have official status then the situation would be similar to the the official name/s of South Africa. --23prootie 04:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The gutteral e as in /uh/ (ex. baley, ba-lUHy) can never be part of the Filipino alphabet because Filipino is mainly based on Tagalog and therefore will not contain words with the gutteral e. It is already enough (though a bit ridiculous) for a pure Filipino [or Tagalog] speaker to pronounce, exempli 'baley' as ballet with the first syllable stressed. It is comparable to an American pronouncing exempli Filipino 'kayo' as /kha-yow/. [[User:J.J. Nario:J²] ilyk2learn 13:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.J. Nario (talk • contribs)

Bisaya/Suboano-based Filipino

What would be a Bisaya/Sugboano-based Filipino? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.1.25.82 (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Confusion

The terms "de facto" and "de jure" make the sentence involved difficult to read. I didn't know what either one of them meant, so I had to take time out of reading an article about filipino language to look up french words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Athenon (talk • contribs) 07:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It's Latin, "de facto" means "in practice but not put into law," while "de jure" means "put into law". --Howard the Duck 13:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Also, Athenon, see the List of Latin phrases article. The latin phrases "de facto" and "de jure" occur commonly in English. Please do not simplify such commonly used phrases out of articles on the english-language Wikipedia. If someone has the time and is so motivated, though, it might be useful to put a simplified-english version of this article on the Simple English Wikipedia. -- Boracay Bill 01:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Malay

Is Filipino a modified form of Malay (like Indonesian)? Are Malay and Filipino mutually intelligible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.215.54.175 (talk) 13:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No. A few very basic words are similar (man = lalaki / lakilaki), and the number and clustering of sounds is very similar (few vowel sounds, no consonant clusters like English's "strength"), but the grammar is very different. Central Philippines languages are a tiny bit closer to Malay/Indonesian than Filipino is, but they are still not at all mutually intelligible. --Gronky (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I echo what Gronky says. I speak Tagalog but do not understand Malay or Indonesian for the life of me. I can pick out certain words, but it's like an English person trying to understand Icelandic. --Chris S. (talk) 04:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: When you combine several mutually unintelligible languages together, the result is a language that nobody understands!! :)

If someone declares the existence of a language, and nobody speaks it, does it exist as a language?

If I declare that a new tree exists, a cross between a mango tree and a papaya, but I can't find one, does it exist as a tree?

Suggestion: If the article is to focus on Official Filipino language, the number of speakers is 0. The article should link to other articles about the various spoken languages, with a clear indication that Philippine languages that are spoken are not the same as official Filipino language. Decide if the article is about official Filipino (that would be a good start) and then decide if another article should be created about other uses of the phrase "Filipino language" that are separate from the official definition should be created.

Grammatical features of Filipino

Anyone, please cite this in the Grammar section. Thank you. --Filipinayzd (talk) 16:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobody wants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.217.5.179 (talk) 12:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Haha. Well. --Filipinayzd (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Everyone can edit Wikipedia, so you can add it yourself if you like. However, please quote the interesting part, and provide a translation to English so that others can review it. I read the first quarter of that article, and I'm not convinced that he's really shown a difference between Tagalog and Filipino. For one, he says himself that Filipino is a dialect of Tagalog ("mayroon na palang uri o diyalekto ng Tagalog na maaaring tawaging Filipino"). Second, he points out words that would be wrong in Tagalog, but his reference is the ancient Barilya grammar, so it would be as fair to say that these modern uses are just evolutions of Tagalog. Just as English from the 1950s isn't a different language from English today - and it would even be hard to call it a dialect. Gronky (talk) 05:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Speakers Compromise

I think that its obvious that Filipino is in some form or another similar or identical to Tagalog and that all variants of Tagalog officially taught in all educational institutions teaching that language is most likely Filipino so why don't the article imply that first language speakers of Filipino are the first language speakers of Tagalog and second language speakers of Tagalog are the second language speakers of Filipino.23prootie (talk) 06:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

DUMDUM

The following is from Greg - I'm not a registered user - my first comment ever on Wikipedia. I'll get a user name if I do this again... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.118.1 (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you hit close to the point there. "Filipino is in some form or another similar or identical to Tagalog."

The challenge is that "Filipino Language" has several meanings. I propose the following:

1. Filipino is the official Language of the Philippines. It is an amalgamation of mutually unintelligible languages spoken within the Philippines. The Philippines has not, in the past, been united by a single language because there are many distinct languages and dialects spoken, thus the desire to find a solution to bring unity.

The inherent problem with any amalgamation of mutually unintelligible languages is the fact that people speaking any of the source languages do not understand the amalgamated language. In practice, official Filipino is symbolic and is not spoken by Filipinos. Filipinos still speak one or more of the many languages that are widely spoken in Philippines.

2. The official Filipino language, while by definition not the same as Tagalog, is largely based on Tagalog.

3. The term "Filipino" is used to describe the official language of RP, and it is also used to describe the nationality of someone from the Philippines. The term "Filipino" is widely accepted within Philippines and elsewhere in the world to describe a person from the Philippines. It's deeper than that - it's owned as part of ones identity. It's easy enough to identify with a particular language group within Philippines when speaking to people knowledgeable about the various languages spoken there. However, outside of Philippines, there is no value for a Filipino to identify with one of the languages. To someone that is not familiar with Philippines, language identity is not important. Therefore, to someone that identifies as being Filipino, it is often sufficient to identify as speaking Filipino when in the company of people not familiar with Philippines.

4. Many Filipinos, especially when speaking with people unfamiliar with the rich linguistic history of the Philippines, will often refer to their language as "Filipino." This is done by native speakers of Tagalog, Cebuano, Ilonggo, and other spoken languages. This goes back to item 3 - identity.

5. Many Filipinos do not know, understand and agree that official Filipino and Tagalog are in fact different, by definition. My own unofficial polling about this has shown me that the vast majority seem to believe that the official Filipino language IS Tagalog, or that the difference between official Filipino and Tagalog is so small that they are from a practical standpoint the same. Therefore, we have a large percentage of Filipinos that don't have correct information, because Filipino by definition is NOT Tagalog. This leads to enormous confusion when trying to define Filipino as different from Tagalog, because perception is often more powerful than facts.

6. While official Filipino may be the official curriculum at schools, due to item 5, teachers may often refer to Filipino as Tagalog, and may in fact teach Tagalog because it is a spoken language. This reinforces the confusion surrounding the official differences between Tagalog and Filipino.

7. Among experts that attempt to define the Filipino language, the conversation necessarily focuses on the similarity between Tagalog (a spoken language) and the official Filipino language that is by definition very similar, but also by definition not the same. Because of items 1 through 6, it is terribly confusing to know what someone means when they say "Filipino language" because it has so many meanings. Therefore, any definition of the Filipino language must take into account that all of these definitions are accurate to some degree. In fact, it may be useful to include all of the above definitions into the article.

8. The official Filipino language may be the subject of misunderstanding and debate, but one thing I think we can say is that it is not a spoken language, and the stats for this article should reflect that fact. Granted, someone speaking Tagalog that is ignorant of the fact that official Filipino is a different language may disagree. In order to have a group of official Filipino speakers, we would first need to have a group of people that all understand and agree that the language is by definition not Tagalog. These speakers would need to know vocabulary and usage that are by definition incorporated into Filipino. These people would also speak the language routinely. Can anyone point to such a group? Unless someone can, we have no evidence that there are any speakers of the official Filipino language. If the definition of speakers means people that actually speak the official language, we have virtually zero Filipino speakers.

9. There are a large number of people that refer to their language as Filipino that may or may not know that the language they actually speak (Tagalog, Cebuano, etc.) is not actually Filipino. If we define the number of speakers to be the number of people that refer to their language as "Filipino" then we are referring not only to Tagalog speakers, but also to other native speakers that refer to their language as Filipino. That would be a difficult figure to arrive at, since kids think they speak Filipino in school when they're learning Tagalog, and OFW's refer to their language as Filipino simply because they are Filipino.

10. Item 9 does lead to a line of thought that counters the official definition of Filipino language. If people identify themselves as speaking Filipino, are they speaking Filipino? Does it matter what the official definition is? This point is pivotal to determine if there should be two entries: One for Official Filipino and the other for Filipino Language (based on those identifying themselves as Filipino-speaking.)

As it stands, the article definition is a mix between the official definition and the definition held by those identifying as Filipino speakers. Until the article decides which definition it wishes to be, it will be impossible to determine the number of speakers. It's either 0 or some number that is very hard to determine.

For those identifying as Filipino-speaking, one would need to determine first:

Do all Tagalog speakers identify as speaking Filipino? Do Filipinos that have theoretically been taught official Filipino in school, may have actually been taught Tagalog, and speak another language routinely - yet identify themselves as speaking Filipino - do these people count? If a Filipino would identify themselves as Ilonggo-speaking, for instance, when in Philippines, yet identify themselves as Filipino-speaking when overseas, does that person identify as Filipino- speaking enough to be counted? If someone speaks Tagalog as a second language, and identifies this language as Filipino sometimes and Tagalog sometimes, would such a person be counted as identifying as Filipino-speaking, or be counted as Tagalog speaking, or both?

It gets complicated... unless one simply assumes that Filipino language speakers include speakers of any of the languages in Philippines. That actually might not be a bad way to go, if there is an article that focuses on those identifying as speaking Filipino. This would only be possible standing apart from an article on the official Filipino language.

Bottom line: I think two articles would solve a lot of the problems here.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.118.1

===NOT OFFICIAL LANGUAGE BUT NATIONAL LANGUAGE. OFFICIAL IS DIFFERENT FROM NATIONAL.--I am Proud Zamboangueño Latino 20:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Acer Cyle (talk • contribs) 04:21, February 4, 2011

Filipino is the national language; Filipino and English are both official languages; the regional languages are the auxiliary official languages in the regions; Spanish and Arabic are to be promoted on a voluntary and optional basis. See Article XIV, sections 6 and 7 here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Non-sequiter paragraph at beginning

When i view this article the first paragraph is:

Please note that the reference to Canada's income tax being introduced in 1914 needs to be corrected. the "War Tax Upon Income" bill was introduced in the House of Commons on July 25, 1917.

This obviously doesn't belong here (or anywhere really, since why not correct it yourself?). The funny thing is, when i go to edit the page, it's not there. What's going on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.150.60.29 (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"political fiction" assertion — does the cited source support this?

Kwamikagami, I see that you cite J.U. Wolff, "Tagalog", in the Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2006 in support of the assertion, "In practical terms, Filipino is the formal name of Tagalog, or even a synonym of it. It is sometimes described as 'Tagalog-based', part of a political fiction that the national language is based on an amalgam of Philippine languages rather than on Tagalog alone." Does that cited source actually support that assertion -- particularly the "political fiction" bit? The linked WP article contains broken links to the source, so I'm unable to check. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the word "fiction" was used, though "political fiction" is a paraphrase:

Tagalog has a unique status among the more than 100 indigenous languages of the Philippines in that it is the national language alongside of English. ... At the time of the Philippine Commonwealth, Tagalog was spoken by less than a quarter of the population of the Philippines. To avoid political controversy among the speakers of other languages, the fiction was adopted that this language, with some modification of vocabulary taken from other major Philippine languages, was an amalgam of these languages. As such it was called 'Pilipino.' In the 1970s, a new fiction was adopted, that the amalgamation of Philippine languages that was to serve as the national language was composed of a larger number of the indigenous languages than Pilipino had been, and this new language was termed 'Filipino.' However, the terms 'Pilipino,' 'Filipino,' or 'Tagalog' all refer to one and the same language, and all three terms are commonly used to refer to it.

This article is empty apart from the historical details of being made the national language. This would fit in just as well at Tagalog language, so IMO the two articles should be merged. — kwami (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

One of the curses of Wikipedia is that it can be very wishy-washy and say "some people say X, others say Y" a lot. This is a problem when one side is blatantly right. However, it's generally better to pick this approach than to risk Wikipedia supporting the "wrong" conclusion. This is especially true for something with a soft dividing line like "what counts as a language." Note that Valencian language has its own article despite blatantly, by any linguistic measure, being the exact same thing as Catalan, because Valencian nationalists will get upset otherwise. But the article is actually good, and it covers the disputes / different names and why they came about.

Now, I don't have a horse in this fight, but the Ethnologue list shows different figures for Filipino and Tagalog, with far more people speaking Tagalog (http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=PH ). I'd be happier if this article was less definitively strident; everyone agrees that it's a fact that Filipino is 98% based off Tagalog, but the terminology for what exactly this means wildly varies. As noted above with the Valencian example, just because two languages are closely related doesn't mean everyone agrees that Filipino therefore doesn't exist. SnowFire (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Valencian is a different dialect, so there is an objective distinction even if they're very close. (For that matter, all of Western Romance is a single dialect continuum, so any divisions will be arbitrary.) Filipino is not just close; it's more like saying that Castilian is a different language than Spanish, or that RP is different from English. The constitution described a language that did not exist, and then politicians claimed that Tagalog was this language and not Tagalog. That is fiction, and I don't think we should be shy about saying so. Filipino is sometimes a formal name, so I suppose it could be equated with standardized Tagalog, but AFAIK it's generally just a synonym, or contextually determined (Filipino = X seen as the national language, Tagalog = the same seen as an ethnic language.)

It's possible to list the differences between Valencian and Catalan. Can the same be done of Filipino and Tagalog? And if someone's done that, does it correspond to reality?

Filipino is one of several cases where the distinction between "languages" is political, ethnic, or religious rather than dialectical. Others are Moldovan vs. Romanian, Hindi vs. Urdu, Indonesian vs. Malay, and Serbian-Bosnian-Montenegrin vs. Croatian. These are differences of register and standardization (if even that in the case of Moldovan), and are fundamentally different than "languages" based on a dialectical difference, even if they're very close like Macedonian-Bulgarian, Danish-Norwegian, Dutch-Flemish, Galician-Portuguese, Thai-Lao, etc., and we should be clear to our readers that there is nothing inherently different about the "languages", or at least nothing that is not concomitant on the ethnicity or religion of the speakers.

And if I'm wrong about Valencian, then that article needs to be corrected. One erroneous article is not an excuse to introduce similar errors into other articles. — kwami (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, as it happens, there in fact is an article on Castilian Spanish as opposed to Spanish language. The differences between Valencian and Catalan are roughly equivalent to the linguistic difference between, say, American English in California vs. American English in Oregon and Washington State. And I don't see how the Valencian article is "erroneous;" it discusses this and brings it up. I haven't had time to look into this more, but I'm still uncomfortable with the "factual" tone you're taking here that assumes this view is totally right, but I need more time to research this myself. Will try be back later. SnowFire (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Castillian Spanish (the article) refers to ausbau Spanish in Spain as opposed to American Spanish, rather like our articles on RP vs. American English. Here we describe Filipino as sometimes being ausbau Tagalog, sometimes being a mere synonym for Tagalog. We do however have editors who claim that Filipino and Tagalog are two different languages, which makes about as much sense as claiming that Spanish Castilian and Spanish Spanish are two different languages because Spanish Spanish is an amalgam of Castilian, Catalan, Basque, and Galician. — kwami (talk) 22:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Please do read other sources. There are a lot of scholarly works that have delved deep into what really is 'Filipino.' It is NOT a 'political fiction.' It is, however, a linguistic project which has a political nature--which is to unify the islands. It has Tagalog as its (syntactic) base, but no, 98% of it is NOT Tagalog. If you look at the studies, you would doubt if it would even cover 50%. You have Spanish accounting for how many words, Chinese, Arabic, AND other local languages. Tagalog does not have the word for spoon or fork, which came from Spanish (tinidor and kutsara), nor does it have the word for slippers which came from Chinese (tsinelas), nor does it have the word for wild, which came from Bicolano (ilahas). There are a plethora of studies down at the Sentro ng Wikang Filipino, I do hope people take their time and do their research before branding something as fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.55.216.139 (talk) 02:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Tagalog not having native words for spoon and fork does not mean that kutsara and tinidor are Filipino words. The argument that only Filipino can borrow words and not Tagalog has long been discussed and disproven not only by the community, but by linguists as well: otherwise, Tagalog and Filipino would be considered as separate languages, when in fact they are not. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 20:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I realize I'm coming to this debate late, but I don't understand why this phrase "political fiction" is standing here. It seems to me that this is obviously not a neutral point of view. It sounds incredibly loaded, and just because the Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics chose to use a non-neutral stance, doesn't mean Wikipedia should. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The point in this article which I am mostly concerned with is "Prefer nonjudgmental language." Calling it a fiction is judgmental, plain and simple. Let's not completely disregard one of Wikipedia's "three core content policies" just because another encyclopedia is less concerned with it. Dan0 00 (talk) 01:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

"Neutrality" means that your or I couldn't call it a fiction just because that's our opinion. But we report what the sources say. If mainstream sources say some leader is a dictator, we don't need to censor that just because it's a loaded word. We're also allowed to say the Earth is round, even though that's not neutral. — kwami (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

"Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources" (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). Calling it a political fiction, based on one source doesn't count as neutral from this definition. It must inclued "all of the significant views." Dan0 00 (talk) 00:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

PLEASE KNOW YOUR STUFF BEFORE YOU DISCUSS, WIKIPEOPLE

There are a LOT of books that discuss the Filipino language, yet no one bothered to read them. Really disappointing. The SWF and KWF are already WAY AHEAD when it comes to standardizing Filipino (NOT Tagalog). Please read up, I won't be bothered to edit Wiki (because I have other things to take care of). But for starters, can you please refer to:

Mga Piling Diskurso sa Wika at Lipunan (editors: Atienza, published by UP) Filipino ng mga Filipino (V.S. Almario) Gabay sa Ispeling (SWF) Gabay sa Editing (SWF) Balarila ng Wikang Pambansa (not in publication anymore, but is the FIRST codification of the FILIPINO language -- by L.K. Santos)

etc. etc.

Otherwise, can you PLEASE mark this article as "needs improvement" or "biased" or "we don't know what we're talking about." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.55.219.174 (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Characterization of an event questioned

I've moved the following here for reconsideration and/or tweaking as appropriate

An event which illustrates the relationship between Filipino and Tagalog occurred during the impeachment trial of former President Joseph Estrada. When presiding Justice Hilario Davide asked which language witness Emma Lim preferred to testify in, Lim promptly answered "Tagalog". Davide, a Cebuano, disagreed and said that nobody could testify in Tagalog because it is not the official language of the Philippines, and there was no available interpreter from Tagalog to Filipino. Senator Franklin Drilon, an Ilonggo, defended the unity of the two languages, saying that an interpreter was unnecessary as everybody could understand Tagalog.{{Citation needed}}

Looking to satisfy the {{cn}} tag, I found http://philippinelaw.info/impeachment/estrada-transcripts-day-1.html, wherein the following exchange is reported:

Mrs. Ricaforte, we requested for a subpoena duces tecum for you to produce the original of the ledger which was brought before the Senate before in the hearing on October 30, 2000. Did you, in fact, bring this ledger?

MS. RICAFORTE. I have here the listahan from August ....
REP. APOSTOL. May we request that there be an interpreter upon the request of the witness because she would like to testify in Tagalog.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The testimony, is that in Filipino or Tagalog?
MS. RICAFORTE. Tagalog po.
REP. APOSTOL. Tagalog. It is not official.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Because if it is in Filipino,
I understand that the Stenographers can take down the notes in Filipino, being a national language. So, do you need an interpreter?
I understand you can speak in English. Why don't you directly testify in English or in Filipino?
MS. RICAFORTE. Tagalog na lang po. I prefer Tagalog, Sir. Yes Sir.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Then testify in Filipino or English.
REP. APOSTOL. She said, Your Honor, that she would like to testify in Tagalog and she needs an interpreter.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No, no, if you can really speak in English, why don't you speak in English to avoid any delay. It is only the production of a document and the marking, after which the turnover thereof in the meantime to the Secretary of the Senate.
REP. APOSTOL. Your Honor, may I now ask the question.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
[...]
MRS. RICAFORTE. Sa akin po, ordinaring listahan lang po itong aking hawak. I don�t consider this as ledger.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Who has been designated as interpreter?
REP. APOSTOL. Nobody. But I would like to volunteer if she is talking in Waray.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Now, we should get the permission from the honorable Senators-Judges if you�d be allowed also to act as interpreter. Anybody from the Senate who can act as interpreter?
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice� I am sorry.
SEN. DRILON. Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
SEN. DRILON. If the witness will testify in Tagalog or in Filipino, we do not need an interpreter because all of us here understand Tagalog or Filipino.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The problem is, can this be taken down in stenographic notes?
SEN. DRILON. I think, it can be taken down.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We have the assurance that whether the testimony be in English, Tagalog or Filipino, it can be taken in stenographic notes, then probably we can allow.
SEN. DRILON. Yes, our stenographers, Mr. Chief Justice, in the Senate can take the stenographic notes in Tagalog, in Filipino, in English.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Okay, then, you may proceed.

I don't read that as supporting the characterization above. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

It's close. The judge objects to Tagalog and suggests she use Filipino instead. Apostol said she wanted an interpreter. Drilon said that's not necessary because everyone understands Tagalog and Filipino. I think the only thing wrong is that Davide only objected to the time involved in getting an interpreter if she could just testify in Tagalog or English. How's this:

An event which illustrates the relationship between Filipino and Tagalog occurred during the impeachment trial of former President Joseph Estrada. When presiding Justice Hilario Davide asked which language witness Emma Lim preferred to testify in, Lim answered "Tagalog". Davide, a Cebuano, asked that she instead testify in Filipino to avoid the delay in finding an interpreter. Senator Franklin Drilon, an Ilonggo said that an interpreter was unnecessary as everybody could understand both Tagalog and Filipino.

— kwami (talk) 01:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

That version seems to contain a presumption that some participants in the exchange were trying to make a point by insinuation about Tagalog-based Filipino as the national language based on some knowledge about the personal backgrounds of individual participants and on conclusions drawn about what opinions they might hold about that based on those unstated backgrounds. As I read the exchange, on the surface it was about the question of whether or not stenographic notes could be taken for testimony in Tagalog. I think a fairer version would be something like

During the impeachment trial of former President Joseph Estrada, presiding Justice Hilario Davide asked which language witness Emma Lim preferred to testify in, Lim answered "Tagalog". Davide, a Cebuano, asked that she instead testify in Filipino or English. The issue was resolved when Senator Drillon asserted without contradiction that all participants were able to understand Tagalog or Filipino and that Senate stenographers were able to take notes for testimony in English, Tagalog or Filipino.

That version doesn't highlight that this was event which illustrates the relationship between Filipino and Tagalog. I don't think that characterization is a good one, though, without reading more into the exchange than is present on the surface. Without that characterization read into it, this event doesn't seem relevant here.

I note also this earlier transcript snippet re stenographic notes and Kampangan:

Ipagpaumanhin po ninyo, kung minsan siguro ang aking Tagalog ay hindi kasinggaling nuong kay Congressman Ta�ada. Sapagkat si Congressman Ta�ada po ay taga-Quezon, lalawigan po ni Presidente Quezon. Ako naman po ay tagalalawigan ng Pampanga, kaya paminsan-minsan ay kinakailangang tulungan ng Ingles. Sapagkat hindi ko maaaring tulungan ng kapampangan, hindi makukuha ng stenographer.

My approximate understanding of this earlier bit, via Google translate, is

I am sorry you, maybe sometimes my Tagalog is not kasinggaling nuong with Congressman Taada. Because Congressman please Taada meeting in Quezon, President Quezon province please. I also please have rustic of Pampanga, so sometimes necessary to help the English. Because I can not help the Kapampangan, not available to the stenographer.

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, here's a non-machine translation of the previous:

Please forgive me, but at times my Tagalog is not as good as that of Congressman Tañada. For Congressman Tañada is a native of Quezon, the native province of President Quezon.¹ I myself am from the province of Pampanga, and every now and then I still require the help of English.² I can't use Kapampangan, because the stenographer wouldn't be able to record it.

Notes:

1. The president who adopted Tagalog for the national language

2. The implication being that he needs English to supplement his Tagalog vocabulary which is still somewhat limited due to him not being a native speaker.

-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 06:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Reverted a May 2012 change to the lead sentence

In this edit I have reverted the changes made by this May 2012 edit to the lead sentence. I couldn't figure out what the edited version of the sentence was trying to say. If a reworded version of this change is introduced, it probably needs to cite a source supporting the assertion that the particular languages listed in the list of 8 different major languages have whatever significance is being asserted for those particular languages. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Both of the lead paragraphs are very bad; they both start with the same repetitive words "Filipino is a prestige register", and contain essentially the same exact information. Both paragraphs even have "the other being English" twice in parenthesis. One sentence contains UNGRAMMATICAL written-English (there are no commas and a ungrammatical use of "but" after the the phrase "though..."):

"Though Filipino is patterned to Tagalog language in sentence construction but several terms in Filipino language are not available in Tagalog because the Filipino language is a mixture of the 8 majority languages of the county to form a national Language “Filipino Language”.[2]" Filipino language.

As mentioned before, this statement is ungrammatical. Brianc26 (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC) Brianc26 (talk) 00:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Commented out the Filipino vs. Tagalog section

The whole section is completely confusing.

First it describes the difference between the demographic terms Filipino and Tagalog, but then just drops it. The reader is left wondering why they mentioned it in the first place. I assume the intent is to clarify the scope of both terms as both are often used interchangeably, but it doesn't explain the context.

The second paragraph repeats the same things already discussed in the previous section. It makes a claim that Tagalog and Filipino are mutually unintelligible and then proceeds to contradict itself by calling this a "political fiction" (which incidentally, is true).

The last sentences are similarly WTF:

It is usually called Filipino within the Philippines and among Filipinos to differentiate it from other Philippine languages, but it has come to be known as Filipino to differentiate it from the languages of other countries; the former implies a regional origin, the latter a national.

What?! It's "called Filipino but is also called Filipino"? How on Earth is that similar to the Castilian-Spanish situation? I assume that the sentence meant to say "called Tagalog within the Philippines", but I'm not even sure if that is true (Filipino is called Filipino officially even within the Philippines, it is only called "Tagalog" colloquially).

I've commented the entire section for now pending clarification of those points. I've also removed a misplaced sentence in the lead which referred to the Tagalog language, not Filipino. Though both are more or less the same languages really, officially they are separate (which is why we have two articles of them in the first place).-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 21:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

A lot of political crud has built up over the past couple months. I reverted to the May 8 version. — kwami (talk) 09:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Much better. Thanks. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

We've now got an edit war started, apparently coordinated, so I've protected the article. — kwami (talk) 08:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

write a few sentence to tell why these tides occur? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.64.75 (talk) 11:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Filipino which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)