Talk:Old Tagalog

Copyvio bot tag
This page was tagged by a bot as a possible copyright violation; that was a mistake by the bot, as the supposed source is a Wikipedia mirror. However, some text here seems to have been copied from Tagalog language, and if so needs attribution; the template copied can be used for that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

We must do some Revisions i think. it should become more appropriate but and why suddenly we add an Indonesia Stub in this article which is a Tagalog Language? it was not Indonesian? (124.6.181.218 (talk) 01:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC))
 * I think we all make mistakes, and that was one of mine, sorry about that. Fixed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 04:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Are there any images of old baybayin font to be found? Princessosma (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Merge to Tagalog langauge
Pre-colonial Old Tagalog is completely unattested except for a few toponyms in the Laguna Copperplate. Substantial primary sources from early colonial times do exist, but the language in these sources and its phonological/grammatical (etc.) features are not covered here in this article or totally incorrect (such as the phonology table: Old Tagalog had no /tʃ/, /dʒ/, /ʃ/, /ɾ/), nor are there many secondary sources which could help us to built a linguistic profile of early colonial Tagalog. As long we don't have any info here about 16th-17th century Tagalog (the actual Old Tagalog), I suggest to redirect this page to the main article Tagalog language. What do you think? –Austronesier (talk) 10:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. This article does not introduce any new information, most likely because there is just too little information about the topic. The etymology of Tagalog is mentioned elsewhere, the history of Tagalog is mentioned elsewhere, Baybayin is mentioned elsewhere. All that is left for this article is the phonology. I found a source for a reconstructed phonology here. I think this should just be put on the Tagalog article. Now if we were talking about the "Classical Tagalog" or "deep Tagalog", that would be an interesting article worth keeping, but not this repeated information stub. --Glennznl (talk) 11:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * "You know what, you're right. You're always right. That's my homie, Mr. Right." Just kidding but yeah, I concur because I also have the same sentiments with Glennznl. I'm actually frustrated with the article's existence since, like Glennznl said, there's virtually nothing much new information you can gather there. The sections other than the phonology one are just copied from the main Tagalog language and Baybayin articles. Anyway, I feel honoured that I'm the other guy you mentioned hehe. Probably because I "contributed" to the article. - Darwgon0801 (talk) 12:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I picked you as a "familiar face" from the edit history :) I think all of us wish we had more solid information. The Sankrit loanwords must have entered during that undocumented period between the 9th-15th century, but it's less sure whether they came directly from Sankrit, or via Malay (we have mukhâ as in Sanskrit, but Malay has muka); we don't know what the distribution of languages in the 9th century was like, maybe the Kapampangan and Remontado Agta (aka "Sinauna") area was bigger then, or there was another language related to Kapampangan and "Sinauna" that was later absorbed by Tagalog; and so on.
 * As for early "Classical Tagalog", I'll keep my eyes open for more literature. Btw the Zorc paper is great; maybe we can expand the opening paragraph in Tagalog language based on it. –Austronesier (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I wonder what we should do with the phonology table then, it is too specific and not interesting for the average reader of the Tagalog page, in my opinion. Another option would be to improve this page with the paper and hopefully find more sources and information (I suspect papers on Proto-Philippine or Greater Central Philippine languages will have more information). --Glennznl (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have removed the spurious sounds from the table. The real Old Tagalog inventory can be inferred from the Baybayin sign inventory and from what happened to Malay/Sankrit loans. Palatals were all nativized, so clearly Tagalog had none except for /j/ $⟨y⟩$. Your idea is good, we can try to expand this page to a general "History of Tagalog"-article (and move the title accordingly). It's a bit sad that there is no source that that goes into the details of the phonological history of Tagalog. Zorc's paper you have linked above is nice, but not complete. We need to say more about the loss of *l (compensatory lengthening as in Tagalog maasim, Central Bikol maalsom, Cebuano maaslom), loss of *q before consonant (Tagalog bago, Central Bikol bâgo /baʔɡo/, Cebuano bag-o), and what happened to *ə. Zorc's dissertation has good information about Tagalog, but it is in tiny bits scattered over the text. –Austronesier (talk) 07:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think turning this page into a "History of Tagalog" page would be the best solution, it could also incorporate information about Classical Tagalog, Spanish influence and other newer developments. It seems like /l/ next to another consonant was a combination not allowed in Old Tagalog phonology, notice here on page 348 that vowels are inserted after the /l/. These might be two different developments from different eras though. The paper you linked seems useful. Perhaps more information could be found in papers about the Kasiguranin language as well. I am working on Tai script pages however (I recently published Tai Noi script and Fakkham script) and don't have much time to create a "History of Tagalog" page.--Glennznl (talk) 08:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's wild stuff by Potet, I have completely forgotten about this paper and will rapidly do so again :) There's two l's: an inherited one, which is dropped in most cases (or occasionally becomes h as in *balay > bahay), and a secondary one which comes from Proto-Central Philippine intervocalic *d (*matadəm > matalim), and never becomes zero. So it's a typical drag chain shift: *l > Ø, *-d- > -l-. And then there's l from Malay/Sanskrit r. After Old Tagalog had gotten rid of *-lC- clusters by compensatory lengthening to -V:C-, they still disfavored new -lC- clusters in Malay loans, and turned them into -laC- (harga > halaga, cermin > salamin); but note that -rC- > -raC- in also found many Bornean variants of Malay, so maybe the words arrived in the Philippines already with an extra syllable. I'll look for some more sources to cite, and then try to turn this into a brief "History of Tagalog". –Austronesier (talk) 10:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Interestingly r>l was still active during the Spanish period despite allophonic d/r existing. See words (briefly Googled so of no particular importance) like kumpil, hulma, kubli, kulti, silbi and balasa. Sundalo and ataul are even more interesting, suggesting d>r>l (perhaps even d>l for ataul since this /d/ was not intervocalic). Other words did keep Spanish D and R seperate, so I suspect that those are much later loans, during the time that Spanish influence seperated allophonic d/r into two seperate phonemes.--Glennznl (talk) 10:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Since [r] originally was just an allophone of /d/, there were only two choices for nativizing Spanish R: either adopt it as /d/, or as /l/. For tautosyllabic R in kumpil, hulma, kubli, kulti, silbi, the letter was the more natural choice. Balasa is interesting; judging from the s < j it must be very early. Tagalogs could have nativized it as /badasa/ [barasa], but maybe at that time, the r > /l/ rule for Malay loans was still in living memory. –Austronesier (talk) 11:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting, thanks. I see the terms Pre-Tagalog, Proto-Tagalog and Tagalic used for the language before Old Tagalog, so more info could be found that way as well, perhaps. --Glennznl (talk) 13:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Filipino
Hi Ako Po si crisel 112.198.229.60 (talk) 07:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)