Jump to content

Talk:Tagalog language/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Official Status in Semporna, Malaysia ?

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

Hmmm.... That was added in this edit, with a cited supporting source: "Basic population characteristics by administrative districts - 2006", Department of Statistics, Malaysia. The info and the cited supporting source apparently came from the Semporna article, where an equivalent assertion supported by the same cited source is made. The cite of the supporting source in that other article was added in this edit. Are you disputing that this cited source supports this? A footnote in WP:BURDEN says, "When there is dispute about whether the article text is fully supported by the given source, direct quotes from the source and any other details requested should be provided as a courtesy to substantiate the reference." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
yes, i'm disputing the validity of those articles... i mean, i'm come from Sabah and the state doesn't have its own recognized offcial language. Even the indigenous languages (such as kadazan-dusun, murut, bajau) doesn't have any official status here. Thus, why do they want to recognised a foreign language as an official language right?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.82.96.77 (talk • contribs) 19:40, September 20, 2009
Disputing that a cited supporting source supports an article assertion is a different matter than disputing the validity of a supporting source. See WP:V. I haven't seen the cited source and I'm guided here by WP:AGF. I see that the editor who added that info and cited that source is active, and I've asked that he join this discussion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
oh.. yes, that would be nice... he should join into this discussion.. (obviously, since he's the one who edited it) heheh... :)
Hi there. The citation ("Basic population characteristics by administrative districts - 2006", Department of Statistics, Malaysia) does not say anything about about Talalog enjoying official status or whatever. It only states the total population in the district of Semporna - and this is the purpose of this citation/source. I did not insert it in this page. The citation should be removed from the Tagalog page (Done!). Also, as a Sabahan, im quite sure that Tagalog does not enjoy any official status in here. Try ask the person who inserted it: User:23prootie. ќמшמφטтгמtorque 14:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
As the assertion has been challenged, and as the editor who added the assertion has removed the supporting citation in this edit, I've removed the assertion from the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Baybayin

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

ᜆᜄᜎᜂᜄ᜔

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

The problem is that use of Baybayin is not "official." Your stated belief is what we call an "assumption of bad faith," something we strongly discourage at Wikipedia. Please do not accuse other editors of prejudism or racial discrimination. If you'd like to bring forth sources that illustrate that Baybayin is still used, you'll have more of a case. Until then, I don't see any reason to include this information. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 06:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree. I keep on watching this page since 23prootie kept on adding Baybayin on the article, even though it is no longer used in texts. Rest assured, 23prootie was blocked because of disruptive editing and personal attacks. Buhay Tao has the notion that he is still using the script, so 23prootie did on the previous section above. I guess Buhay Tao and 23prootie did talk pages contributions in Wikipedia with headings written in Baybayin, 23prootie did renamed himself (yes, he moved his user page and user talk page into a characters embedded in Baybayin. Buhay Tao's block was lifted few days ago (I guess the reason of his blockage is block evasion or something) to allow username change request. Buhay Tao did renamed himself into a user name bearing Baybayin text. Hmm.. I smell something similarities and another evasion.--JL 09 q?c 15:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Loanwords into english

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

Who's that Filipino putting dirty words?

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

Map oddity

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

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

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

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

Trillon borrowing

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

Phonology

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

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

IPA pronunciation

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

This page puts the stress on the second syllable. I'll add the English IPA based on Merriam-Webster, but a Tagalog transcription would be appreciated as well. Lfh (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Besides MW, that's the only pronunciation listed at the OED, so I think that settles it. kwami (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Very good. Re. the first of your two edits - my browser doesn't permit me to see any difference - was it something important? Lfh (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh it was the looped g. Lfh (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Bible

I made some corrections and improvements to the #Religious Literature section. Previously, there was a confusing timeline of when the first Tagalog Bible was published. It stated that the PBS published the full translation in 1970, and then further down it said there was a Protestant translation published in 1909. According to my research, the first translation and publication was in 1905. So as not to just delete the entry for PBS, I simply added "modern" Tagalog as their translation. If anyone else has any more information, please expand. Thanks! Ssredg (talk) 08:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Native and/or literate speakers, please manifest

What is the use of the accents? We also have acute, circumflex and grave in Portuguese (and since Old Spanish is kind of Portuguese, it would not be really a big deal if Tagalof turned to have an orthography very similar to ours), but the use here seems a completely different one. Also, I want to know how one can predict the glottal stop, /ʔ/, the sound in English uh-oh!, as it would be useful in the Tagalog IPA transcriptions in Wikipedia. Thank you. 177.65.14.222 (talk) 11:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

/o/ a close-mid back rounded vowel similar to English "forty"

Is that rhotic or non-rhotic English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.218.102 (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

It is rhotic in American and Canadian English, but non-rhotic in many dialects of UK English, and some New England Dialects of English (e.g. Bostonian English). The reason the article uses "forty" [fɔʳti] [fɔti] [foʊʳti] (depending on the dialect) is because almost all dialects of English pronounce "o" as /ɔ/ or /oʊ/ when occuring next to a historically rhotic-liquid, but with varying pronunciations elsewhere. For example "on": Lowland Scots [œn], UK Recieved Pronuncation [ɔ̃n], East Cost American English and Canadian English [ãn], West Coast American English [ɑ̃n], Southern American English [oʊn]. 

 Brianc26 (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

zero

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

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

/s/ and /z/ are not Phonemes in Tagalog. "Sero" and "Zero" are just varying spellings both pronounced the same way [seɾo] (Native Tagalog speakers outside of Metro Manila) [seɾu] (Tagalog speakers of dialects which lax word final /o/ to /u/, such as Metro Manila speakers) or [siɾu] (L2 speakers of Tagalog whose L1 is a Philippine language with 3 vowels, e.g. Tausug, Binisaya, or others). Few, if any L1 Tagalog speakers would actually pronounce it as [zeɾo]. Zero is the English spelling, whereas Sero is the older spelling. "Z" is not a letter in the Tagalog alphabet and was added in the last thirty years to the "Filipino" alphabet. The concept of zero could not have entered the culture before Spanish colonial times, because it is a loanword not only in Tagalog but in every Filipino language. In all likelihood Proto-Austronesian culture had a base five system, as every Austronesian language has a cognate with the words 1-5, but only 1-10 in the Philippine languages.Brianc26 (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Inaccurate Citation of Facts

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

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

Yes the ACS (American Community Survey) says 1,480,000 , almost all in Washington State and California. I would argue that the data is still slightly spurious however, as the majority of Filipino Immigrants are not L1 speakers of Tagalog, and other Philippine languages which have a large presence (maybe even larger than Tagalog from my experience) in Filipino communities such as the Ilocano language were not even on the survey but were innacurately lumped in as "Other Pacific Islander Languages". Many families probably wrote down that they speak "Tagalog" on the survey because it is a prestige language, but actually speak another language at home. The data itself states 1,480,000 so I would agree with he preceding comment as this is the only data we have.Brianc26 (talk) 23:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

VERY Unlikely borrowings

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

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

All the above a FUNCTION words.

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

tayo is borrowed from Ilocano or Southern Cordillera languages.Kasumi-genx (talk)
Hi Joe, I'm going to address your concerns.
The use of TAYO is limited to languages spoken in Luzon. Tagalog is a Central Philippine language where KITA is normally used. My source is Dr. David Zorc. I'll look for the full citation (it's been a while). This also goes for a number of Tagalog's words, many of which were borrowed from Kapampangan.
Conjunctions. Tagalog and other Philippine languages has borrowed a lot of conjunctions from Spanish - o, porke, para, pues, ni, hasta, mientrastanto, etc.
The "huwag" part I'll remove. I think I may have gotten it from the Zorc source, but I'm not sure.
But yes, Tagalog did borrow a lot of Malay words while many are obviously cognate; the problem is sorting between the two. The ones I listed are from Dr. John U. Wolff's 1976Malay borrowings in Tagalog. I'm reverting your removals for now, and I'll be putting in the citation for the Zorc one as soon as I find it. --Chris S. 02:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Aha. I found the Zorc reference: The Prehistory and Origin of the Tagalog People, 1993. The complete list:
borrowed from Southern Luzon
bibig "mouth"
búkas "tomorrow"
butó "bone"
daán "hundred"
gúlat "surprise"
ilán "how many"
kailán "when"
kayó "you (plural)"
lamán "contents" (but note Bikol lamán "flesh")
loób "inside"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LOL. Good man! Way to take a challenge. I trust your research. Thanks for following up. Once again, you're doing a great job. BTW, can you take a look at the Iloko stuff? Thanks. Joemaza (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Couldn't help but comment that there is a word in Tagalog which doesn't seem to come from Spanish but is a cognate with latin which bulla(bubble).Ako maybe a cognate of ego(I). Also tata is an old/ancient latin meaning father(similar to Tatay). Cognates of sabon(soap) are found in the languages of India/Hindi (and regional languages), Indonesia(Sebun), Arabic, Persian, and Malay. --Jondel (talk) 08:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
That's a good point. Sometimes I find the Spanish borrowings bizarre because virtually every Tagalog conjunction borrowed from Spanish has a Tagalog counterpart that means exactly the same thing, and which ones speakers use seem to be regional and even personal: I have never heard a Tagalog speaker use "pues," "hasta," "mientrstanto;" I have very rarely heard "porke;" "ni" is not a Spanish borrowing at all; and "para" and "o" are the only common ones I hear, and many speakers prefer "dahil"/"dahil sa" and other constructions, etc. over "para" (I have heard speakers use both in comparatively equal frequency). In fact, "o" is the only example mentioned that I hear almost universally.
Also the Malay/Tagalog issue is very interesting. Technically Tagalog is "older" than Malay considering the fact that the Austronesian people migrated from prehistoric Taiwan and Southern China to the Philippine archipelago, then further south until they reached Malaysia and Indonesia; the Malaysians and Indonesians seem to have "back migrated" to parts of the Philippines sometime afterwards. Historical linguistic research shows support for this. The cultures have been in contact for centuries well before Spanish occupation. Also, some genetic research suggests that Filipinos are genetically closer to Southern Chinese (where the Austronesian people are believed to have originated) than people of the Indonesian/Malaysian archipelago which also supports the "migration from Taiwan" theory. Not to belabor the point, but sorting out what are borrowings and what are not is difficult because we are trying to "sort out" borrowed words from languages that are genetically related. I have articles; sorry I don't have them prepared but I'll fish them out when I have time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.121.74 (talk) 05:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Rizal,Bulacan,Bataan,Nueva Ecija,Tarlac and Zambales used to be Kapampangan in the prehispanic era that is why the tagalog spoken there has many kapampangan loans.Kasumi-genx (talk)
It's very hard to sort which words may be borrowings from Malay or which are simply cognates. Also, who knows... maybe Malay actually borrowed from Tagalog! The Austronesian language group, if I remember correctly, is one of the largest or the largest language group when it comes to the sheer number of different languages in the family. These languages generally share a core stock of words inherited from Proto-Austronesian. Also, because the written histories for these languages most often don't stretch very far back compared to say, Indo-European languages, I imagine that even language experts themselves may have some difficulty sorting everything out. I say that a comprehensive academic study should be referred to when trying to list borrowings. I think even a language history book will get some cognates/borrowings confused. With that being said, there are a few words that appear to be questionable just from a glance. "Anak", for example, is most definitely cognate-- it appears in a great many Philippine (and other Austronesian?) languages and is very commonly used. A word that critical is not often borrowed. Other words that should be probably looked into are "tulong" and "sakit". But, in general, all those listed as borrowed from Malay, or any other genetically related language, should be checked with scrutiny before being presented as fact. The world already has enough misconceptions about language--we don't want to create any more! 112.198.78.135 (talk) 10:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

I disagree with the article's claim that Tagalog borrowed these words from central philippine languages: ng, araw, ang, ito, nito. Tagalog IS a Central Philippine Language along with the Visayan Languages. These words are cognates because they are in the same local-family. Tagalog is closer to Cebuano, or Ilonggo, then say Ilokano or Pampangan. Most Philippine languages are Austronesian Languages so they are related because of language evolution, but some are closer than others. I agree that "tayo" is a borrowing because other central languages, like Ilonngo only have "kita" meaning We Inclusive. However, ng and ang are obviously not borrowings. All Austronesian languages which follow the Austronesian alignment have markers such as "ang" and "ng". Not all words between Austronesian languages that are similar are borrowings. No one is claiming that Tagalog borrowed the Malagasy word "aho" meaning "I". "Ako/aku/aho are cognates in every austronesian language and are used in their Swadesh List. Another Tagalog word "araw" is probably not a borrowing from a Visayan Language because in Visayan languages araw=adlaw. This is another word that demonstrates a sound-change between Tagalog and other Central Philippine languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianc26 (talk • contribs) 05:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Moreover, to answer the comment that "ako" may be a cognate of "ego"... It so happens that Latin and all Indo European Languages probably evolved from Proto-Indo-European. Tagalog however evolved from Proto Austronesian. If you look at the proto forms for the latin "Ego" a major difference becomes evident in the reconstructed forms. For example Latin "Ego", German "Ich", Norse "Eg" all evolved from the proto indo european word for the first person singlular pronoun /*heǵ/(oH/Hom). The Proto-Austronesian language's word for the first person singular was /[i-]aku/. The second latin word for father "tata" probably evolved from the proto indo European /ata/ (it became the primary word for father in the slavic languages before being palatilized... its modern cognates are [ojtʃets] in Polish, [otets] in Russian. The word might have been borrowed from Proto-Altaic, whose word was also possibly (proto-altaic is not yet an established proto language) "ata".ˈThe fact that they look similar now is coincidental. Neither "ako" nor "ego" had an "o" ending in their proto language's form. Moreover, Ako possible had a forth syllable as a prefix in front of it, whereas Latin gained an "o" from /h*eg/. There is an extremely controversial theory in Historical Linguistics that speculates the existence of a macro-family called the Borean languages. The only languages not included in some proposals of this family are those indiginous to Sub-Saharan Africa and Australia. Brianc26 (talk) 03:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

ABOUT tagalog words

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

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

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

Generally, when a language borrows a word another language borrowed (like Karma from English) it is written like so: Karma (Sanskrit via English). You have to include the language it originally came from unless no one knows for certain which language it came from. Actually it may be that Sanskrit borrowed the word from Proto-Dravidian, as Sanskrit is an Indo-European language that entered India perhaps sometime around 1500 BCE whereas Tamil, a Dravidian language, was more or less indiginous to the region (at least at the time of the Indo-Aryan migration into India after the collapse of the Indus Valley Civilization). Karma was first documented however in Sanskrit... Brianc26 (talk) 03:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

"Official" minority language?

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

Supposedly Tagalog and Spanish are the official languages of the State of California. Though English is not... Unggoydiyos (talk) 05:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like original research to me. See California#Languages and sources cited there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Tagalog language materials in English and Spanish

Put these in further reading and wikisource.

Tagalog Language

http://books.google.com/books?id=1h79V94d3UMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Tagalog&hl=en&sa=X&ei=90bUU_ORHaHfsAS-_YC4Dw&ved=0CE4Q6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=Tagalog&f=false

A Tagalog English and English Tagalog dictionary (1904)

https://archive.org/details/aeg8731.0001.001.umich.edu

https://archive.org/details/atagalogenglish00nigggoog

https://archive.org/details/tagalogenglishen00niggrich

http://books.google.com/books?id=__U-AAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Filipino-English vocabulary [microform] : with practical example of Filipino and English grammars (1915)

https://archive.org/details/3076753.0001.001.umich.edu

https://archive.org/details/aqj7937.0001.001.umich.edu

Vocabulario Pampango-Tagalog-Inglés [microform] (1910)

https://archive.org/details/aqh7543.0001.001.umich.edu

Vocabulario Pampango-Tagalog-Inglés : compendio del Tagalog-Castellano-Inglés (1914)

https://archive.org/details/aaw9129.0001.001.umich.edu

A grammar of the Tagálog language, the chief native idiom of the Philippine Islands (1925)

https://archive.org/details/agy9509.0001.001.umich.edu

A handbook and grammar of the Tagalog language (1905)

https://archive.org/details/abs5202.0001.001.umich.edu

https://archive.org/details/handbookgrammaro00mack

https://archive.org/details/ahandbookandgra00unkngoog

The Tagalog language : a comprehensive grammatical treatise adapted to self-instruction and particularly designed for use of those engaged in government service, or in business or trade in the Philippines

https://archive.org/details/afu8787.0001.001.umich.edu

https://archive.org/details/cu31924023374378

https://archive.org/details/aax2353.0001.001.umich.edu

https://archive.org/details/tagaloglanguagec00lendrich

http://books.google.com/books?id=_fZ8HzSRCrwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Tagalog&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IEfUU7OIHLPLsQTv1YG4AQ&ved=0CB8Q6AEwATge#v=onepage&q=Tagalog&f=false

Tagalog texts with grammatical analysis (1917)

https://archive.org/details/tagalogtextswit00santgoog

Philippine orthography (1918)

https://archive.org/details/ash5654.0001.001.umich.edu

Ortografia Filipina (1918)

https://archive.org/details/acr8769.0001.001.umich.edu

Diccionario Tag'alog-Hispano [microform] (1914)

https://archive.org/details/apz7330.0001.001.umich.edu

Diccionario hispano-tagalog, Volume 2

http://books.google.com/books?id=7Y4UAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Tagalog&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9UfUU5W_DZDIsATCtoKgDw&ved=0CD4Q6wEwBjiCAQ#v=onepage&q=Tagalog&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=8aA0AQAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Diccionario manual de terminos comunes Español-Tagalo [microform] (1913)

https://archive.org/details/apz7313.0001.001.umich.edu

https://archive.org/details/aba9205.0001.001.umich.edu

Vocabulario tagalo-castellano (1920)

https://archive.org/details/apz5108.0001.001.umich.edu

Vocabulario de la lengua tagala [microform] (1860)

https://archive.org/details/aqj5903.0001.001.umich.edu

Vocabulario bilingüe = Español-Tagalo-Tagalo-Español (1917)

https://archive.org/details/aba6697.0001.001.umich.edu

Lecciones de gramática hispano-tagala (1915)

https://archive.org/details/afu8784.0001.001.umich.edu

Nueva gramática tagalog, teórico-práctica; (1872)

https://archive.org/details/aeg2107.0001.001.umich.edu

Nueva gramatica Hispano-Tagala [microform] : minuciosamente escrita con arreglo al uso común y de los modernos hablistas y escritores vernáculos (1921)

https://archive.org/details/aqm0427.0001.001.umich.edu

Gramática na isinauicang Tagalog nang sa Castilâ sa caparáanang mg̃a tanóng at sag̃ót caparis nang sa uliráng guinaua [microform] (1886)

https://archive.org/details/aps6593.0001.001.umich.edu

https://archive.org/details/amz7193.0001.001.umich.edu

Compendio del arte de la lengua Tagala (1879)

https://archive.org/details/abw8658.0001.001.umich.edu

https://archive.org/details/abv9071.0001.001.umich.edu

Arte de la lengua tagala y manual tagalog para la administracion de los ss. sacramentos [microform] : manual Tagalog para auxilio de los religiosos de esta santa provincia de San Gregorio Magno

https://archive.org/details/apu1031.0002.001.umich.edu

https://archive.org/details/apu1031.0001.001.umich.edu

https://archive.org/details/artedelalenguata00tota

http://books.google.com/books?id=OH1FAQAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Tagalog&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BkjUU8fRAc7IsATbiIIY&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAziMAQ#v=onepage&q=Tagalog&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=EsN5hC_76VEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Tagalog&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QmPUU_mVIKTesATl2oLIBw&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAThu#v=onepage&q=Tagalog&f=false

Método teórico-práctico y compendiado : para aprender, en brevisimo tiempo, el lenguaje tagálog (1899)

https://archive.org/details/ajj6911.0001.001.umich.edu

https://archive.org/details/aav3716.0001.001.umich.edu

Método teórico-práctico y compendiado; (1887)

https://archive.org/details/mtodotericoprct00milegoog

Arte poético Tagalo (1895)

https://archive.org/details/adp7419.0001.001.umich.edu

Consideraciones sobre el origin del nombre de los números en Tagalog (1889)

https://archive.org/details/ajv6094.0001.001.umich.edu

El problema linguistico en Filipinas (1922)

https://archive.org/details/asg4645.0001.001.umich.edu

La primera imprenta en Filipinas : reseña histórica bio-bibliográfica con tres apéndices (1910)

https://archive.org/details/adr6689.0001.001.umich.edu

https://archive.org/details/apz3238.0001.001.umich.edu

Maguindanao - filipino (tagalog) lexicon

https://archive.org/details/maguindanawnfili00samu

El sanscrito en la lengua tagalog

http://books.google.com/books?id=JYdBAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Tagalog&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9UfUU5W_DZDIsATCtoKgDw&ved=0CDIQ6wEwBDiCAQ#v=onepage&q=Tagalog&f=false

Texts

https://archive.org/details/atk1566.0001.001.umich.edu

https://archive.org/details/akj1307.0001.001.umich.edu

https://archive.org/details/atk0887.0001.001.umich.edu

https://archive.org/details/auj9323.0001.001.umich.edu

https://archive.org/details/aca0770.0001.001.umich.edu

https://archive.org/details/ahu6047.0001.001.umich.edu

https://archive.org/details/aqa5917.0001.001.umich.edu

https://archive.org/details/aeq6690.0001.001.umich.edu

https://archive.org/details/ahu6045.0001.001.umich.edu

https://archive.org/details/ahu9053.0001.001.umich.edu

https://archive.org/details/ahu9377.0001.001.umich.edu

https://archive.org/details/atk1577.0001.001.umich.edu

https://archive.org/details/apz7279.0001.001.umich.edu

https://archive.org/details/aps8662.0001.001.umich.edu

https://archive.org/details/ahu5343.0001.001.umich.edu

https://archive.org/details/apz7305.0001.001.umich.edu

https://archive.org/details/apz7283.0001.001.umich.edu

ALAMAT N G ILANG-ILANG

http://books.google.com/books?id=3udah7puYloC&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22Jose+N.+Sevilla%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=00nUU-vuO4rlsAS_3oDwDg&ved=0CDcQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

Bible

https://archive.org/details/ajg9704.0001.001.umich.edu

https://archive.org/details/aqw1423.0001.001.umich.edu

Ueber die Tagalische Sprache

http://books.google.com/books?id=kaoPAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22Franz+Carl+Alter%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dUfUU9-BLsresATZpIE4&ved=0CFUQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q&f=false

NOBELAG TAGALOG "Pinaglahuan"

http://books.google.com/books?id=9cSgxl-xeS0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Tagalog&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SUjUU4r7Nu3nsATUn4GwCA&ved=0CDYQ6AEwBTigAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Usage of Kita?

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

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

I don't think the second "kita" is in modern use, or maybe it's very rare. In Ilonggo, "kita" is a form of Tagalog's "tayo" ("ta" also exists in Ilonggo). Gronky (talk) 02:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Batanguenyo uses it...Kasumi-genx (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC).

Kita still exists in many phrases in Modern Tagalog such as 

                                                           "Kita       na      lang   tayo    mamaya" 
                                                           1st.p.dual  already only   we-incl later
                                                           "You and I shall be we (inclusive) later" or more coloquially "see you later"

It is also prevalent in the speech of L2 speakers of Tagalog, who sometimes use it in place of "tayo" in my experience Brianc26 (talk) 03:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC). I don't this Kampangan's use "kita"... "Tayo" might actually be a Kampangan loanword into Tagalog that replaced "Kita" as "we". Brianc26 (talk) 03:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Kita na lang tayo mamaya means, Let's See Each Other...Kita in there means vision, the use of the word kita which means I_You which I am pointing out..for example I love you means Mahal Kita in Tagalog in Kapampangan it would be Kaluguran Daka or in Ilocano it would be Ay - ayaten daka other Central Philippine languages lack that term.Kasumi-genx (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 18 June 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Number 57 14:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Tagalog language → Tagalog – Per WP:NCLANG, since the language is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the title should just be "Tagalog". Otherwise, Tagalog (disambiguation) should be moved over the base title. This is a WP:COMMONNAME besides; we often use titles like "Foo language" for WP:NATURAL disambiguation, but the name of the language is really just "Tagalog". Someone would be much more likely to say "I speak Tagalog" than "I speak the Tagalog language". --BDD (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@BDD, Red Slash, Cavarrone, and Shhhhwwww!!: hi. Were you aware of the page Tagalog people before commenting, just wondering? "Tagalog" is not primarily a term for the language. Khestwol (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I was, yes, though as you can see, the language is an established primary topic here. And I think that's correct. Look at, for example, a search for tagalog -wikipedia in Google Books, where the language dominates. I appreciate the consistency of your argument, however—I think we can all agree that the status quo is wrong, one way or another. --BDD (talk) 17:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
If the move does not happen as proposed, I think that would be the right thing to do. --BDD (talk) 17:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks BDD. Also regarding the page Tagalog people, that can be moved to "Tagalogs" per WP:CONCISE, right? As per Google Ngram, "Tagalogs" is very common in usage as compared to "Tagalog people". Khestwol (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I'd think so. That seems to be the new pattern for articles on ethnic groups. --BDD (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
So I opened a new move request for "Tagalog people" → "Tagalogs". Cheers, Khestwol (talk) 12:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Ooh, no, I'd still think the language is a primary topic, as it has been for a while. Red Slash 21:23, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
No, I don't think there is a primary topic for "Tagalog". "Tagalog" can also refer to a Tagalog person. I think "Tagalog" should be the location of the disambiguation page currently at Tagalog (disambiguation). Khestwol (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: if the article Tagalog people gets moved to "Tagalogs", then it will be awkward to use the singular form of the same noun ("Tagalog") for the language when the plural form "Tagalogs" refers to the people. Khestwol (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Tagalog (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

After the recent move from "Tagalog people" to Tagalogs, I think this title must be moved back to "Tagalog language", because Tagalog language is no longer the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Tagalog". Khestwol (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Tagalog which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 5 July 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Procedurally closed as not (yet?) relevant. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 14:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


– WP:CONTROVERSIALLY moved by Kwamikagami even before an ongoing discussion on whether to move this article back to its current name has ended. This discussion has clearly reached a WP:CONSENSUS that this article is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME for "Tagalog". There is also another ongoing discussion here that may affect this article. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 06:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Kwami is not an administrator. And he did the right thing.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment But it is not ambiguous. As can be seen in the previous discussion that moved this in the first place, people in the United States and Canada often associate the word with the language not the people. This should reflect the Worldwide view not just the perspective in the Philippines. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 13:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Actually, it is. I'm putting it at 60-40, with the language being the more common reference. But hey, Filipino is ambiguous also, eventhough the nationality or citizenship is the more common reference to it than the language. The best thing about the clear separation of the topics, hence precise disambiguations, is that we're leaving no room for doubt on the topics. And this is what I am aiming at with the Tagalog being a dab page that links to "Tagalog language" and "Tagalog people". The same way Filipino should link to Filipino language and Filipino people.--RioHondo (talk) 17:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Consensus can change, but your comment is obviously wrong—there's consensus just above here that the language is primary topic. --BDD (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support moving "Tagalog language" back to "Tagalog". Kwamikagami's move was against the move discussion opened by BDD that just closed. Additionally, a no consensus close should put the article back at "Tagalog", the last title that found consensus. The article currently at "Tagalogs" should not be included in this RM as there's already an open RM at that article.--Cúchullain t/c 03:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment. The article had only been under "Tagalog" for a week. It had been "Tagalog language" for the longest time. The same goes for "Tagalog people". Last week's moves to these articles on the Tagalog language and Tagalog people are the cause of instability now. Move "Tagalog" back to "Tagalog language" and "Tagalogs" back to "Tagalog people", the most stable and consensual titles proven by time and in their respective edit histories.--RioHondo (talk) 04:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Correct, I hadn't seen the discussion. I reverted the move because we have long-standing consensus that the bare root should either be a dab page, though recently there have been mass moves to make the root the ethnographic page in the case of tribal peoples. The people are fundamental, as, except for conlangs, you cannot have a language without a people to speak it. If we were to start debating over whether e.g. "German" more frequently refers to the people or to their language, we'd have an interminable mess with no resulting benefit for the reader.
Looking over the closer's comments above, it's clear that he had no idea what he was talking about. By his argument, German language should be moved to "German" because it's a primary topic and you're more likely to say "I speak German" than "I speak the German language". But German people should also be moved to "German", because it's also a primary topic and you're more likely to say "he's German" than "he's a German person". That's exactly what dab pages are for. — kwami (talk) 18:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I'm at least glad to know you didn't look at the discussion and soldier on anyway. But you must know that flowery statements like "The people are fundamental" have nothing to do with Wikipedia naming conventions. WP:NCLANG explicitly allows for cases where the language is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Latin, anyone? --BDD (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, for exceptional cases like "Latin" and "Esperanto". But our normal convention, followed in thousands of articles, is for "Foo language". There is nothing exceptional about Tagalog. — kwami (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
And what makes a case "exceptional"? All I'm asking for is a discussion based on policy rather than reflexive opinions. --BDD (talk) 16:20, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Even if kwami and BD2412 had not moved those pages, they would still have been moved nevertheless by the closer of the RM, because of the !votes and consensus in that discussion to move both pages. Khestwol (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment, now Red Slash who is himself in favor of using the base title "Tagalog" as the disambiguation page, and "Tagalog language" as the language page according to his "Weak support" !vote, has moved "Tagalog" again to "Tagalog (disambiguation)". But, most arguments and most !votes both there and in this discussion of course still favor to use "Tagalog" as the disambiguation page, and "Tagalog language" as the language page. Khestwol (talk) 01:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Speedy close Resolved.Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 10:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move wars

I have not followed or participated in the discussions above about moving this article between the names Tagalog and Tagalog language, but I took a quick look at the situation after this edit caught my eye. What I see is:

  • On this talk page, a discussion re a requested move Tagalog language → Tagalog took place between 18 and 21 June 2015 at #Requested move 18 June 2015, and was closed on 26 June with a result of "move".
  • A related discussion re a requested move Tagalog (disambiguation) → Tagalog took place at Talk:Tagalog (disambiguation)#Requested move 30 June 2015 betweeen 30 June and 14 July, and was closed on 15 July with a result of " no consensus. What a mess."
  • On this talk page, a discussion re both of the above took place between 5 and 9 July at #Requested move 5 July 2015, and was closed on closed on 9 july as Procedurally closed as not (yet?) relevant.
  • On 26 June a move was made: 14:03, June 26, 2015 Number 57 (talk | contribs | block) moved page Tagalog language to Tagalog (Per WP:RM on talk page)
  • On 5 July a move was made: 05:52, July 5, 2015 Kwamikagami (talk | contribs | block) moved page Tagalog to Tagalog language over redirect (per NCLANG, consistency, and longstanding consensus).
  • On 6 July a move was made: 14:23, July 6, 2015 BD2412 (talk | contribs | block) moved page Tagalog (disambiguation) to Tagalog (WP:MALPLACED)
  • On 8 July a move was made: 21:46, July 8, 2015 Red Slash (talk | contribs | block) moved page Tagalog to Tagalog (disambiguation) over redirect (fixing outright vandalism)
  • On 9 July a move was made: 01:49, July 9, 2015 BD2412 (talk | contribs | block) moved page Tagalog language to Tagalog (WP:RM closed out of process due to page moves; restoring status quo ante.)
  • On 23 July a move was made: 05:39, July 23, 2015 Kwamikagami (talk | contribs | block) moved page Tagalog to Tagalog language over redirect (rv. move against recent closed move request)
  • On 23 July a move was made: 13:54, July 23, 2015 Jenks24 (talk | contribs | block) moved page Tagalog language to Tagalog (restoring RM consensus)

Some of this is probably related to move discussions on Talk:Tagalog people and the move

  • On 29 June a move was made: 13:22, June 29, 2015 Cuchullain (talk | contribs | block) moved page Tagalog people to Tagalogs (Per move discussion)

Guys, please settle down.

I haven't been involved in the discussions or the moves, but my own inclination would be to pay attention to the Wikipedia:Article titles policy page where it says under Wikipedia:Article titles#Precision and disambiguation

Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that.

and

Exceptions to the precision criterion may sometimes result from the application of some other naming criteria. Most of these exceptions are described in specific Wikipedia guidelines or by Wikipedia projects, ...

which would lead me to Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages#Article names, where it says

Most language articles should be on a page titled XXX language. Reasons for this recommendation:

  1. Ambiguity. While some language have special forms that refer unambiguously to the language, English is inherently ambiguous about language names. Having a standard of "XXX language" ensures that it's always unambiguous. There is always the possibility of "XXX literature", "XXX grammar", but these cannot be referred to simply as "XXX", and so are not a reason for disambiguation.
  2. Precedent. This is how Encyclopædia Britannica and many other English-language encyclopedias name their articles.

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@Wtmitchell: The last two entries in your timeline were actually the first two moves (they happened on 26 June and 29 June, not in July). -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 01:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
My bad. Thanks. I've edited the timeline to put them where they ought to be located and fixed my misdating of the Tagalog people → Tagalogs move. I haven't used <del> and <ins> tags in doing that because I think the clutter would be confusing. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
@Wtmitchell: I've made one more edit to the timeline - the move by Jenks24 was today (not in June), a few hours after Kwamikagami's last move. Jenks24 then immediately move protected the article for 6 months. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 02:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that, Wtmitchell. Unfortunately, what happened here last June was a flash mob RM, that was validated. And the more recent discussion which had more participants voting to get the article back to where it had been the longest was invalidated merely for procedural reasons or malformed request. Oh btw, these people had this moved because of Primary Topic, but look where English is, at English language. Tell me that is not the primary topic for English. (Oh because UK people are also commonly called English, yea right).--RioHondo (talk) 02:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
No, what happened was that there was an RM that ended with a clear consensus, followed by a series of confused, overlapping counter-RMs and one editor unilaterally moving pages to his preferred title. When the dust settles I expect there will be a followup RM that hopefully will give a more accurate gauge of the community's consensus.--Cúchullain t/c 14:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Say what you must, but the June RM only had like half the number of participants than the latest at Talk:Tagalog (disambiguation) and went for only a week compared to the recent one which was going on for over 2 weeks and getting more votes in favor of the X language format until it was abruptly ended merely for procedural errors.--RioHondo (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
What's sad is that it's quite possible that RM would have put the language article back to Tagalog language, but the multiple RMs and move warring effectively killed the discussion.--Cúchullain t/c 14:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:NCLANG exists precisely as a standard to be followed to prevent time-sucks like this. If English language can have "language" without problems, then so can Tagalog and almost every other language. It's not confusing. Having a Wikipedia standard means that discussions like this once can be short-circuited and actual productive work can be done. --Taivo (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Article probation

There's an article probation banner on this talk page, which places it in Category:Community probation, but it doesn't seem to be mentioned at Wikipedia:General sanctions as it should be if the sanction is current... can anyone shed any light on this for me? Andrewa (talk) 23:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

If Tagalog language isn't listed there, then the banner should be deleted. Done. --Taivo (talk) 23:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you... I based my doesn't seem to be mentioned on a text search of the page Wikipedia:General sanctions, having already used the old IBM system utility IEHEYEBALL (;-> on it... is that adequate? Sanctions are not my main area of expertise at Wikipedia, so I'm hesitant to be dogmatic. Andrewa (talk) 00:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
If memory serves, the probation was the result of arguments involving certain nationalist elements concerning Tagalog/Filipino language and whether the two were "the same language" and constant edit warring including redirecting one to the other (similar to the recent IP at Malay language and Indonesian language, but much worse). I'm pretty sure the probation is no longer current.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 01:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, we seem to have a strong consensus that the banner should not have been there, and it's gone. Good result. Andrewa (talk) 03:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
The tag which caused the sanctions notice to appear was inserted without explanation here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tagalog_language/Archive_2&oldid=1137217101"