Talk:Tagalog language/Archive 4

Linguistic basis vs. Standardized form -- who determines whether two languages are separate?
This revert caught my eye -- look at the two edit summaries there.

I looked at the Filipino language article for more info (and had to make a fix there -- see this edit, and please do cleanup there if needed). That article says "standardized variety", but I'm not sure that it is standardized to an officially recognized standard. It seems to me as if some discussion is called for. Talk:Filipino language would probably be a better place than this talk page for that discussion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what your question is? The name "Filipino" is given to one of the two national languages of the Philippines. It is de jure supposed to be a common national language, "developed and enriched" with elements from other languages, according to the Philippine Constitution. However, it is de facto a variety of Tagalog (see here, which is a pretty well-sourced section). It's standardized through prescriptive rules set by the Commission on the Filipino Language. For the purposes of Wikipedia, I think having both articles the way it is, with Filipino language explaining the standard form and its use in official capacities, and Tagalog language talking about, well, everything else.  Mr. Gerbear | Talk 13:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The question in the section heading, "who determines whether two languages are separate?" was sort-of rhetorical when I added this section. I was hoping to spark discussion about the difference in beetween the terms "Linguistic basis" and "Standardized form" in the two edits compared in the diff I linked (and also the term "standardized variety", which is what the Filipino language article says). Looking further, though, I see what looks like a long standing problem in the infobox of this artice. The apparent problem originated in this February 18, 2013 edit which, as I read it, changed the infobox to assert both that (1) the Tagalog and Filipino languages form a collection of two languages with separate ISO 639-2 identifiers (tgl and fil) and (2) that the ISO 639-3 identifier tgl maps to a macrolanguage in which Filipino is a dialect of Tagalog (my use of the term dialect there comes from looking at the "Language with more than one ISO 639-3 code" section of the docs for infobox language. Also, see here for definitions of the terms Macrolanguages and Collections of languages.) Item (1) there was removed in this July 5, 2015 edit but item (2) is still with us today.


 * Whew! Having looked at all of that, the problem I see with item (2) is that it disagrees with ISO 639-3. See ISO 639-3 Downloads § Macrolanguage Mappings and the complete set of mappings here. Based on that, I have removed that apparent problem from the article in this WP:BOLD edit. This may need further discussion. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I am aware that according to linguists and their criteria of mutual intelligibility, Filipino and Tagalog would be considered as the same languages. However, according to the mandate for the Filipino language and Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino (KWF), Filipino is the national language of the Philippines based on Tagalog but further enriched by the other Philippine languages. However, in the current situation, Filipino is still not *that* different from Tagalog but we cannot deny that it has already developed and is being developed based on the other Philippine languages. There are already many words from the Philippine languages that have been incorporated in the corpus national language such as katarúngan, dugyót, bána, uswág, láwas, rabáw, etc. Furthermore, there are also variations in forming verbs based on the Philippine languages, such as the use of mag- instead of -um- or the use of gina- for the imperfective aspect. Thus, this means that Filipino is still in the process of development. Leogregoryfordan (talk) 03:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Wtmitchell, long time no talk. In full disclosure, I believe that the wording may have originated from me, I'm not sure but someone could go through my edit history if they wish. Linguists in general collectively abstain from distinguishing between a language and a dialect, as there are no objective and satisfactory criteria of doing so. The distinction is usually left to politics, society, and culture. With Tagalog/Filipino, politics has deemed Filipino to be separate from Tagalog and acknowledges that Tagalog is the basis of Filipino. From a linguistic standpoint, there is simply one language that has been experiencing standardization by the Philippine government for several decades. --Chris S. (talk) 08:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Therefore, I move that my edit be approved. Filipino is the national language based on Tagalog and Tagalog is the linguistic basis of Filipino. Leogregoryfordan (talk) 07:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I had to look back at this edit, which sparked this discussion, to get my bearings here. That edit by Mr. Gerbear reverted your edit, and the revert is still in the current version of this article. Your edit had asserted that Tagalog is the linguistic basis of Filipino, and the revert changed that to assert that Filipino is the standardized form of Tagalog. I'm not a linguistic taxonomist, and I dont know whether such a discipline exists, but I see that there is some relevant information at Taxonomy (general). I, in my ignorance regarding that field and with my lack of a strong POV about is-a vs. has-a here, see that as a distinction without a difference. Also, if the distinction does involve a difference, I don't think that difference is properly resolvable on the basis of a POV vote by WP editors -- supporting sources would be needed. Predicating the availability of reliable sources expressing differing viewpoints about that brings WP:DUE into play. Further, neither this article nor the Filipino language article is a good place to get down into the weeds of those opposing POVs; if that is done, it should probably be in a section of the Philippine languages article or in a standalona WP:SS topical detail article with main article links from and topical summaries in all three of those other articles. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Accents
Any objections to the complete deletion of the subsection "Accents"? It is completely unsourced, and in many parts poorly written and of trivial content (e.g. "Quezon and Aurora's Tagalog has unique accents"). IMO, the local variation in the Tagalog speech area is sufficiently covered in the subsection "Dialects". –Austronesier (talk) 14:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

"Five distinct dialects" or "Four main dialects"

 * The page Tagalog people says "Five distinct dialects".
 * The page Tagalog language says "At present, no comprehensive dialectology has been done [...] there appear to be four main dialects"

To participate in the discussion, please visit the same discussion topic on the other article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tagalog_people#%22Five_distinct_dialects%22_or_%22Four_main_dialects%22 --Oliver H (talk) 17:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 3D Image of Tagalog component Languages.png

"Filipino vs. Tagalog: Why is 'Filipino' the Superior Option"
I'm just confused as to why "Filipino" is being chosen over "Tagalog" when it comes to Filipino-based TV/film articles here on Wikipedia.-Prince Silversaddle (talk) 22:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Vowel phonemes
The article says that there are 14 vowel "phonemes". Excluding diphthongs leaves 10 simple phonemes. Except the vowel phonology section seems to indicate that there are actually only 5 such phonemes. Which is it? The text is poorly written.

UPDATE: The "Tagalog phonology" page doesn't recite a numerical vowel count but appears to shown 5 simple vowels. In which case, the 10 simple vowel phonemes on the present page are probably pairs of allophones (as evidenced by the term "possible realizations").

If they ARE true phonemes, it would help to show some minimal pairs.
 * I fixed that. I read the original article by John Wolff that was referenced. Whoever put the 14 or 10 vowel phonemes in apparently misunderstood the article and/or misunderstood the nature of suprasegmentals. --Chris S. (talk) 05:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

translate to tagalog
Bantak kalad jad abong yo 119.94.6.82 (talk) 04:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)