Talk:Ilocano language

language naming inconsistencies
I am not here to advocate for anything except consistency.

There are language naming inconsistencies between this article, categories, templates and MediaWiki: Of the above, we can do nothing about MediaWiki. For the others, we can standardize on one of 'Iloko', 'Ilocano', or 'Ilokano' and modify the templates, categories, and article as necessary.
 * Wikipedia has the article Ilocano language (with redirects from Ilocan language, Ilokan language, Ilokano language, Iloko, Iloko language, Iluko, ISO 639:ilo). There has been previous discussion regarding the article name; see (see.
 * categorized in, , and
 * the en.wiki article identifies ISO 639-2 and ISO 639-3 language codes in the infobox:
 * ISO 639-2 refers to the language name 'Iloko' (the English name) and 'ilocano' (lower case; the French name)
 * ISO 639-3 refers to the language name 'Iloko'
 * IANA language-subtag-registry file refers to the language name 'Iloko'
 * MediaWiki language support returns the name 'Iloko'
 * MediaWiki uses the name 'Ilokano' to refer to ilo.wiki (see List of Wikipedias)
 * templates:
 * → (deprecated; to be replaced with  – see TfD)
 * categorizes to – calls  – spelling difference: 'c' not 'k'
 * categorizes to
 * → (replaces )
 * categorizes to
 * → text (has a tool tip that reads: 'Ilokano language text')
 * categorizes to
 * → text
 * categorizes to Category:Articles containing Ilokano-language text
 * the cs1|2 template suite using ilo, Iloko, Ilocano, or Ilokano:
 * categorized in
 * categorized in Category:CS1 foreign language sources (ISO 639-2)
 * categorized in
 * categorized in Category:CS1 maint: unrecognized language‎
 * categorized in Category:CS1 foreign language sources (ISO 639-2)
 * categorized in
 * categorized in Category:CS1 maint: unrecognized language‎
 * categorized in
 * categorized in Category:CS1 maint: unrecognized language‎
 * categorized in Category:CS1 maint: unrecognized language‎
 * ,, , , and all rely on Module:Lang which overrides the IANA / ISO 639 code-to-name definition (Iloko) in Module:Language/data/wp languages (Ilokano) – the provenance of that module is unknown
 * if 'Iloko' is the preferred language name, Module:lang/data is modified to override IANA / ISO 639 / Module:Language/data/wp languages code-to-name definitions
 * if 'Ilocano' is the preferred language name, Module:lang/data is modified to override IANA / ISO 639 / Module:Language/data/wp languages code-to-name definitions
 * if 'Ilokano' is the preferred language name, there are no modifications of the Module:Lang suite
 * regardless of preferred name,, though deprecated, is modified to remove Ilocano as redundant or wrong
 * category names may change to match the preferred language name
 * the cs1|2 template suite relies on the MediaWiki language name table. However, cs1|2 is capable of overriding MediaWiki code-to-name definitions
 * if 'Iloko' is the preferred language name, no action is required
 * if 'Ilocano' is the preferred language name, Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration is modified to override the MediaWiki code-to-name definition
 * if 'Ilokano' is the preferred language name, Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration is modified to override the MediaWiki code-to-name definition

Consistency matters. Article name should match category names should match template renderings. So the question is: —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * which language name: 'Iloko', 'Ilocano', or 'Ilokano'?


 * For consistency for this language version of Wikipedia, Ilocano should be used per WP:COMMONNAME (see Ngrams). Module:lang/data should be modified to override IANA / ISO 639 / Module:Language/data/wp languages code-to-name definitions and Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration should be modified to override the MediaWiki code-to-name definition.--Lam-ang (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Would go with Ilocano per moved discussion above. --Trialpears (talk) 11:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

A month on, and there having been no further comment:
 * Ilocano is the chosen name.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Is the sixth Ilocano vowel a schwa ə or close back unrounded vowel ɯ?
Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino 2014 says it is a schwa and even suggests writing the schwa as ë. According to acoustic analysis by [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304347732_The_Sound_Systems_of_Inivadoy_and_Ilokano_An_Acoustic_Phonetics_Approach Jezia, et. al. 2013 (unpublished)], it is a schwa. Apparently, based on Rubino 1997 it is a close back unrounded vowel? Tagaaplaya (talk) 08:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * @User:Fdom5997 Due to conflicting sources, can you please discuss your arguments here supporting that it's actually ɯ not ə. Can you provide links or screenshots of the excerpts from the sources. Thanks. Tagaaplaya (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have copies of both Rubino (2000) and Rubino (2005) and can confirm that he uses for the sixth vowel, which he further describes in prose as a "high-mid centralized back unrounded vowel" (Rubino 2000:xxviii). So technically, it ranges between . The KWF calls it "schwa" in prose without any committed IPA transcription. Generally, it is not really  in most Philippine languages, but usually pronounced higher and more back just like in Ilocano (e.g. in Rinconada Bikol or Waray dialects with schwa), although of course, languages can differ in this very detail.


 * I think that the KWF follows a practical convention (cf. also David Zorc, who has used $⟨ə⟩$ in many of his publications) rather than a precise transcription. –Austronesier (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Isn't [ɨ ~ ɘ ~ ɯ ~ ɤ] too liberal for a range? The difference between ⟨ɘ⟩ and ⟨ɯ⟩ is night and day, comparable to ⟨a⟩ vs ⟨i⟩. If ever, KWF would have been very irresponsibly wrong. What other references support Rubino's claims? If there aren't any due to limited literature, can we at least add what you said in the article for clarification.
 * Edit: I confused ɘ with ə. I mean "The difference between ⟨ə⟩ and ⟨ɯ⟩ is night and day, comparable to ⟨a⟩ vs ⟨i⟩. Tagaaplaya (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, ⟨ɘ⟩ and ⟨ɯ⟩ are neighbors, and a lowered and centralized [ɯ̽] as described by Rubino is pretty close to [ɘ] in the vowel trapezoid.
 * This notational variation is not only found with Ilocano, and is a direct result of the phonological structure of Philippine languages. Many Philippine languages, especially those with a three or three+"schwa" vowel system have a rather wide range of allophones. E.g. /u/ in many Bisayan varieties can be everything from [u] to [ɔ] depending on stress, environment and speaker. (OR-alert) To find such a bandwidth also for /ə/ (or whatever we use to notate it) is not really surprising, just listen to the different qualities of the vowels e.g. in Pangasinan dereweg. The choice of one fixed symbol for the schwa-like phoneme is actually somewhat arbitrary. (end of OR) Now, the long-standing tradition uniformly uses ⟨ə⟩ for all languages where it occurs (Llamzon, Zorc and many others), so the KFW does nothing "wrong" here. Rubino listened more closely for his research, and made a different and IMHO (based on my ears and personal experience with southern Ilocano speakers) reasonable choice. But to my knowledge, he is the only one to do so. So it's the author of the reference works for Ilocano (grammar and dictionary) against a notational tradition of many scholars who have a broad interest in Philippine languages, but do not specialize on Ilocano.
 * (To add to the confusion, some scholars even have used ⟨ɨ⟩ for the schwa-like vowel, but as far as I know, no-one has done so for Ilocano. Ok, not really relevant here. Just a thought.) –Austronesier (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As per my edit (my bad), I actually meant ⟨ə⟩ vs ⟨ɯ⟩ not ⟨ɘ⟩ vs ⟨ɯ⟩. While I agree that ⟨ɘ⟩ vs ⟨ɯ⟩ can be neighbors, I don't think it's the same for schwa ⟨ə⟩ and ⟨ɯ⟩. ⟨ɘ⟩ maybe schwa-like but ⟨ɯ⟩ certainly is not. This is why I think KWF is wrong if Rubino is indeed correct. It seems that Rubino is the most accurate that the vowel is closer to or is a ⟨ɯ⟩ but he is alone. However, more sources including the supposed-to-be-authoritative KWF says it is closer to or is a schwa ⟨ə⟩. Is this a dilemma? Tagaaplaya (talk) 05:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have failed to reply to this thread, but I immediately remembered it when I stumbled across this paper: "Phonetics of Pangasinan Ilokano". It's just perfect for solving the dilemma, since it has a formant chart on page 8. Realizations range from [ɨ] down to [ə], but interestingly, not quite as consistently back as to justify Rubino's ⟨ɯ⟩. Hayashi uses ⟨ə⟩ for the phoneme, which IMO we should follow. (NB not because KWF uses the term "schwa"; their concern in the  Manwal sa Masinop na Pagsulat is orthography, and since there is no language in the Philippines (at least AFAIK) that has more than one non-low (i.e. other than [a]/[ɐ]) central vowel, "schwa" covers everything from [ɨ] to [ə].)
 * Also, I think it would be best to have two vowel tables here that explicitly describe Amianan and Abagatan Ilocano, each with their own source. –Austronesier (talk) 09:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update. So it's settled. Can we agree on editing the vowel from ⟨ɯ⟩ to ⟨ə⟩ in the article. Tagaaplaya (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

ammok met agmotor ngem nu agsakay ka kinyak dapat ammom met ti agkararag ken lumagto
ammok met agmotor ngem nu agsakay ka kinyak dapat ammom met ti agkararag ken lumagto 222.127.171.52 (talk) 12:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)