Misplaced Pages

Talk:Tagalog language

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TaivoLinguist (talk | contribs) at 18:09, 25 July 2015 (→Moratorium proposal). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:09, 25 July 2015 by TaivoLinguist (talk | contribs) (→Moratorium proposal)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Template:Vital article

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Tagalog language. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Tagalog language at the Reference desk.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Template:Community article probation

Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
Good articlesTagalog language was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 22, 2014). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.
Tagalog language received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconLanguages Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconTambayan Philippines Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconUnited States Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

/Archive 1


/summaryforotherlanguages

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)

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/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)

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 /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 in Polish, 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)

Lists: Needed or not?

The excessive lists and otherwise trivial content in the "Examples" and "Learning resources" sections do not really seem necessary. However, it would be a rather sweeping change to remove all of them, so I am looking for thoughts as to what parts are useful and which should be removed. Thanks, Kakofonous (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I opine that lists which flout WP:V should be removed. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
If you don't object, I think I'll remove "The Lord's Prayer (Ama Namin)", "Common phrases", "Proverbs", and "Learning Resources". They don't really seem useful. --Kakofonous (talk) 00:27, 5 March 2008 (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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

tagalog post alveolars

tagalog post alveolars do exist,but tagalog postalveolars are normally alveolo palatal not like english which are domed,rounded and partially palatalized. proof: http://felipeaira.i.ph/blogs/felipeaira/2008/06/26/ipa-chart-for-tagalog\ for me \ty\ digraph makes sense in tagalog orthography instead of \ts\ because soft g which is the voiced counterpart is written as \dy\ in tagalog orthography,tagalog tʃ is actually tɕ and dʒ is actually dʑ in tagalog,tagalog post alveolars.

What i notice is that native alveolo palatals occur on demonstratives frequently dijan> dʑan(dem.) and tijan>tɕan(dem.) and they sometimes dissapear in stress added syllables on loan words like junction which is sometimes pronounced as dijaŋɕon or dzaŋɕon and diego is normally pronounced as dʑego in tagalog.

Some posh people pronounce the soft g sound as ʑ especially Kris Aquino-/korek ka ʑan/ 

Kasumi-genx (talk) 14:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Correct me if I happen to be wrong.
I can understand your first hand evidence, however, Misplaced Pages would have us refrain from writing "research"; that's what I would call this because I haven't come across anything similar to this. If you find literature to support it, add to the article.
One comment on conventions - '//' forward slashes/virgulas are commonly used when transliterating phonemes and '' square brakets are used when transliterating actual phonetics, or their actuall realization. Compare /botl/ with (in some English dialects) for bottle. So, I hope I get this right.
According to your experience: /d(i)jan/ ->
Joemaza (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the first poster; a lot of the information is not inaccurate but could be enriched since it seems to capture the pronunciation habits of certain dialects. I find that urban speakers are more likely to pronounce true and (as in the words "tsa" /tʃa/, Eng. "tea" and "diyan" /dijan/, Eng. "there"—the sequences /dj/, /dij/ etc. seem to be in free variation with /dʒ/) but I have heard both urban speakers and most rural speakers (in my experience, that is) pronounce and . I would actually argue that and are more common from my experience.
Also, the sound , which seems to an allophone in free variation of /sij/ (as in "siya" /sija/, Eng. "he/she"), is closer to in my opinion, especially in rural speakers' speech. I think it is worth including both, as in the case above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.121.74 (talk) 04:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

confusion between tʃ and ts in tagalog orthography

many speakers i notice replace tʃ for ts example is pizza is pronounced as pitʃa instead of pitsa Kasumi-genx (talk) 15:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That's because, in Tagalog, there is no distinction between the two phonemes. --Pare Mo (talk) 06:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
That sounds more like phonology (sounds) than orthography (writing).

Nevertheless, I must attest to hearing the same. Joemaza (talk) 22:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Gaddang link

I changed the Gaddang link as the actual gaddang page is listed as Gaddang_Language, all of the other links refer to pages with a small l. I fixed the link to point to the correct page by changing the capitalization, but perhaps the Gaddang_Language page should be changed to Gaddang_language? I was hesitant to make that change due to all of the other links that might be effected and I'll leave that for an expert...

) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.77.149.60 (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This part should be exluded in the article since it is about Filipino already

In 1939, Manuel L. Quezon named the national language "Wikang Pambansa" ("National Language"). Twenty years later, in 1959, it was renamed by the Secretary of Education, Jose Romero, as Pilipino to give it a national rather than ethnic label and connotation. The changing of the name did not, however, result in acceptance at the conscious level among non-Tagalogs, especially Cebuanos who had not accepted the selection..

In 1971, the language issue was revived once more, and a compromise solution was worked out—a "universalist" approach to the national language, to be called Filipino rather than Pilipino. When a new constitution was drawn up in 1987, it named Filipino as the national language. The constitution specified that as that Filipino language evolves, it shall be further developed and enriched on the basis of existing Philippine and other languages.

--Filipinayzd (talk) 09:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The article section involved is "Tagalog:History". All of that fits, IMHO. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 11:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

open vowel?

I've read (can't remember where) that Tagalog a is more of an or than an , so that it may be one of very few languages without an open vowel phoneme. Can anyone confirm? kwami (talk) 09:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

it really depends on the position of the word but some dialects do contrast it and ə is used on unstressed /a/ part of the word in most dialects. for example baka /baka/ and baka /bəka/(maybe) Kasumi-genx (talk) 03:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

For dialects which do not contrast it, is a or in stressed position? kwami (talk) 04:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
/a/ is pronounced as an open vowel regardless if it's a back ,mid or front but it is or in medial stressed positions some of the dialects that split from /a/ merged with /i/ that is why masaya has a synonym/variant masiya>masaya,some nasalize their /a/ on some positions which is stereotyped on gay people. Kasumi-genx (talk)
Okay, thanks! So, if I'm following you, a medial stressed /a/ is pronounced , but it's still in other positions, right? I'm just wondering if there's any language or dialect in the world that doesn't have an . kwami (talk) 06:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Kwami,in ubykh the /a/ has many allophones,it is only on certain environments,in tagalog in non stressed medial position it is but there is some accent.Kasumi-genx (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC).

Regarding the findings of the austronesian basic vocubalary database

it says that most philippine languages came from one root. http://language.psy.auckland.ac.nz/austronesian/research.php .Kasumi-genx (talk) 19:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


Section on dialects

Why has that been deleted (recently - I won't search the History for exactly how)? -Keinstein (talk) 13:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it was vandalized and removed in the forst two of three vandalizing edits on 11 March by an anon at IP 121.1.11.164. The third edit trashed the Code switching section. (see , , ). ip2location locates that IP in Makati. I'm not really into tracking down vandals, but the contribution list from that IP might give some clue. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Just for clarification, the Philippines (and most ASEAN countries) use Dynamic IPs as well as "public generic IPs" that can be used by any ISPs. --- Laibcoms (talk | Contribs) 08:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for doing what I hadn't time to. I've cut-and-pasted the sections back. -Keinstein (talk) 09:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

kin terms

I'm wondering if anyone can tell me the Tagalog words for these kin terms:

co-wife, co-father-in-law, co-brother-in-law, etc. (Spanish coesposa, consuegro, concuñado; also if there are junior/senior distinctions)
I found an old dictionary with baisan, balay for consuegro/a, but don't know if there's a difference between those two words; also bilas for concuñados, but nothing for coesposa.

Thanks, kwami (talk) 06:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't know if you'll find a word for co-wife. The culture of most Tagalog speakers is not polygamous, so they may not have a word for that. However, the Muslims in the South are also Tagalog speakers. Maybe they allow polygamous relationships - but the word they use might be a word tied to the Muslim religion as opposed to a general word. Not every word in every language has a corresponding word in every other language.
I just checked my Vicassan's Pilipino-English Dictionary, Abridged Edition, and there's no entry for baisan or balay. "bilas" is there alright, "The husband of one's sister-in-law".
The Tagalog equivalent of English's "co-" is "ka", so maybe "kaasawa" is co-wife. Gronky (talk) 21:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I mean, if I used the word "ka-asawa" in a sentence without explanation, the person I was talking to would probably ask what I'm talking about, but, if I was talking to someone in English and they used the word "co-wife", I'd ask them what they're talking about (especially if the person I was talking to was a non-native English speaker), even though the word is actually correct. Gronky (talk) 11:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, I don't want to make words up, so if Tagalog doesn't have a word, then so be it. The consuegro terms might be obsolete, or maybe just too obscure for an abridged dictionary. I wonder if bilas is actually masculine, or if that's just an error in translation. kwami (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Ka is just the equivalent -ian or -ese in philippine languages it's synonyms are I-(Northern Philippine),Taga and -Non —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasumi-genx (talk • contribs) 05:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Taglish

Horrible horrible and tacky. Stick to Tagalog when speaking please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.190.62 (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2009 (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)

Languages of Alaska?

Why there is a template of <Languages of Alaska>? Are there people speaking Tagalog in Alaska? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.166.197.244 (talk) 11:03, 7 August 2009 (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)

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. ќמшמφטтгמ 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)

Intelligiblity of Northern Tagalog and Southern Tagalog Dialects

I was thinking if Tagalog can be divided into two languages since the Bikol group was reclassified to many languages from one based on the current gauge of classification of Philippine languages.--Kasumi-genx (talk)

Is this question still related to the improvement of the article Tagalog language on Misplaced Pages?--JL 09 c 14:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes,because there is no studies regarding that...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasumi-genx (talk • contribs) 11:04, January 3, 2010

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) 04:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Phonology

I placed a 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 --Chris S. (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2012 (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 Misplaced Pages. 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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  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)

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 (Native Tagalog speakers outside of Metro Manila) (Tagalog speakers of dialects which lax word final /o/ to /u/, such as Metro Manila speakers) or (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 . 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)

/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" (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 , UK Recieved Pronuncation , East Cost American English and Canadian English , West Coast American English , Southern American English . 

 Brianc26 (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2013 (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 Misplaced Pages. Thank you. 177.65.14.222 (talk) 11:03, 4 September 2012 (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  : 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 (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 (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 (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 (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  : 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 (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  : 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)

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)

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 /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 Misplaced Pages 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 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)

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 Misplaced Pages:Article titles policy page where it says under Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages guidelines or by Misplaced Pages projects, ...

which would lead me to Misplaced Pages: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 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 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 /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 /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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Requested move 25 July 2015

The request to rename this article to Tagalog language has been carried out.
If the page title has consensus, be sure to close this discussion using {{subst:RM top|'''page moved'''.}} and {{subst:RM bottom}} and remove the {{Requested move/dated|…}} tag, or replace it with the {{subst:Requested move/end|…}} tag.

Tagalog → Tagalog language – per WP:NCLANG, longstanding consensus, consensus in the last move request, and discussion in the previous thread. Wouldn't be such a mess if closing admins would base decisions on community consensus and WP guidelines in the first place. — kwami (talk) 04:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Support. Misplaced Pages guidelines are based on discussion and consensus and have the primary goals of 1) standardizing presentation and 2) preventing endless moves and move requests for little practical purpose. The standard in Misplaced Pages for naming language articles is found in WP:NCLANG. It covers languages across the spectrum of usage from the little-known Timbisha language to the most widely spoken English language. The guideline works. --Taivo (talk) 04:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
The trend has change albeit quietly:
Afrikaans, Amharic, Arabic, Avestan, Bislama, Bokmal, Dzongkha, Esperanto, Haitian Creole, Hindi, Interlingua, Kannada, Kinyarwanda, Kirundi, Latin, Lingala, Luganda, Malayalam, Northern Sami, Nynorsk, Old Church Slavonic, Pali, Pashto, Sanskrit, Scottish Gaelic, Standard Tibetan, Tagalog, Twi, Urdu, Volapuk
Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 07:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Actually, there is no such trend, quiet or otherwise. In the majority of these cases, there is no associated ethnic group. Volapuk, Esperanto, and Interlingua, for example, are constructed languages without any possibility of ambiguity since no ethnic group was invented with the language. Old Church Slavonic and Standard Tibetan are also not associated with any particular ethnic group because of the necessary modifiers. Pali and Sanskrit are terms associated with religious speech forms and they are also not tied to any ethnicity. Nynorsk and Bokmal, too, have no corresponding ethnic labels. People who speak Afrikaans and Haitian Creole are known in English as Afrikaaners and Haitians, so there is no ambiguous reference between language and ethnicity. So it's quite clear that this list is seriously flawed and overtly misleading. There is no "quiet trend" here, just an application of the guideline to languages that have no corresponding ethnicity and therefore no possibility for ambiguity. In the case at hand there is, indeed, an ethnic group associated with the language "Tagalog" and therefore ambiguity exists--a Tagalog person speaks the Tagalog language, lives in a Tagalog village, and practices the Tagalog culture. There are no Volapuk people, no Volapuk villages, and no Volapuk culture. --Taivo (talk) 07:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
And what about Latin? It has a corresponding ethnicity but of course it is special. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 08:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
There is no "Latin" ethnicity. The speakers of Latin are called "Romans" in English. --Taivo (talk) 08:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
So what are Latins? Latin Americans? Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 08:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Latin is an exception made after an extended debate, as it is no longer associated with the ancient Latin tribe, and it listed at NCLANG because of that. Tagalog is not comparable: it's a typical case of a language named after a people. — kwami (talk) 17:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
This contradicts WP:Commonname and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:CONCISE which led to the moves in the first place.Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 07:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
You've presented no evidence of that other than your assertions. --Taivo (talk) 08:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Tagalog#Requested move 18 June 2015 has established these. It is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 08:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
That isn't actual evidence. That is an impressionistic comment about a single search on Google Books. Actual evidence for primary topic is much more substantial than impressions and assertions without hard evidence. --Taivo (talk) 09:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Here is a simple test that is just as valid as a list on Google Books. Walk up to a native speaker of Tagalog and ask, in English, "What ethnicity are you?" That native speaker will say, "I am Tagalog". If you walked up to a native speaker of Latin (if such still existed) and asked the same question, the answer would be, "I am Roman". That's the difference between Tagalog and Latin. --Taivo (talk) 09:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
How do your know that? Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 10:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Because we have abundant documentary evidence from the Classical period where Latin speakers always called themselves "Roman". --Taivo (talk) 12:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Please see the discussion in Talk:Arabic#Requested move 15 July 2015.Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 07:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
This move request already has as much support as the original one, which violated a Misplaced Pages guideline. And your example of "Arabic" isn't relevant because of the different usage of "Arabic" and "Tagalog". There are Tagalog people, but people who speak one of the varieties of Arabic (a macrolanguage) are known as "Arabs", not "Arabic people". The sociolinguistic realities of Arabic and Tagalog are radically different. --Taivo (talk) 08:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Even so, this nomination is premature. The dust hasn't yet settled on the previous debates and here we areally now. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 08:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:NCLANG: "Convention: Languages which share their names with some other thing should be suffixed with "language". If however the language is the primary topic for a title, there is no need for this.". The language is the primary topic.Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 08:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
No one has offered any kind of proof that this meets the criterion of Primary Topic. There are only assertions without any actual evidence being presented. It's very clear to me that every editor asserting "Primary Topic" doesn't actually know what that designation means when it comes to languages. --Taivo (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
See below. No one has offered any evidence in support of a move.--Cúchullain /c 16:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
The only evidence necessary is that "Tagalog" can refer to the language or to the people or to the culture, etc. It is ambiguous. That's why a clear policy exists and the move is supported by WP:NCLANG in its primary reading. If you want to use one of the exceptions to that policy then you must offer actual proof for the exception (keeping the current ambiguous title). You have not. --Taivo (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
No, you'd need to show evidence that other ambiguously-titled articles challenge the language as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the term "Tagalog". WP:NCLANG, and also the project-wide policy and practice on article titles, supports the primary topic being at the base name.--Cúchullain /c 17:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
You did not demand such evidence for the original move. You should also read NCLANG before you cite it. — kwami (talk) 17:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
The evidence I've cited below is quite clear, as is WP:NCLANG, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:COMMONNAME, and other elements of the article titles policy.--Cúchullain /c 18:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose and speedy close as far too soon. The confusing move requests and move warring has made it more difficult to determine the primary topic based on page views, but the evidence supports the language easily being primary. In the last 30 days, the two locations of the language article have been viewed several times more than the locations of the article on the Tagalog people. Tagalog has been viewed 13,204 times, and Tagalog language has been viewed 19,042. Meanwhile, Tagalog people has been viewed only 3775 times and Tagalogs 2415. In Google Books, "Tagalog language" returns 1180 hits, while "Tagalog people" returns. Simply skimming through search results for "Tagalog" on Google Books and WorldCat, as well as my university library, revealed far more sources intending the language than anything else.
WP:NCLANG indicates that "If however the language is the primary topic for a title, there is no need for" the title to be disambiguated. This is case like Latin or Esperanto. Similarly, the article titles policy indicates that we should use the WP:COMMONNAME if a subject is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the term, and that titles should be WP:CONCISE and no more WP:PRECISE than necessary.
This RM should be speedily closed as disruptive, and not re-opened until the dust has had a chance to settle.--Cúchullain /c 16:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment: Cuchullain: By that logic, English language should have been at "English". In the last month, "English language" has been viewed 173,070 times, but "English people" has been viewed only 13,717 times. However, moving "English language" to "English" clearly violates WP:PRECISE. Khestwol (talk) 16:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
This whole issue of Primary Topic being argued by the "Oppose" supporters shows clearly and unequivocally that they do not understand the meaning of "Primary Topic". There are no "Latin people" (they are "Romans"), there are no "Esperanto people" (it is an invented language). By their version of "Primary Topic", then every language article must be labelled without "language", leading to massive ambiguity. "What are you?" and "What language do you speak?" can both be answered by "Tagalog". If that is the case, then "Tagalog language" cannot be considered to be the primary topic. --Taivo (talk) 16:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, we're not here to discuss English language, and I have no opinion on that. It's worth pointing out that "English" is much more ambiguous than "Tagalog", as it can also refer to anything to do with England or even the United Kingdom.--Cúchullain /c 17:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
English language is also a language topic, where the language article is viewed more than 10 times as many as the ethnic group title. As per WP:CONSISTENCY we should try to be consistent with the majority of language-article titles. Also please see that German language, Japanese language, and most of other language-article titles use the WP:NATURAL disambiguator "language" in their titles, which makes the titles WP:PRECISE. You can not break consistency and have double standards when it comes to Tagalog. Khestwol (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Again, this isn't a move request for English language. But like I said, "English" is also a search term for England, which was viewed 155,321 times in 30 days. The language doesn't look like a primary topic for the term "English" to me. In this case, evidence indicates the language is the primary topic of "Tagalog".--Cúchullain /c 17:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
And there is no "dust". That's just an attempt to mask the simple fact that there are twice as many editors who support following Misplaced Pages guidelines than there are who don't want to follow Misplaced Pages guidelines. --Taivo (talk) 16:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Nonsense. It's frustration about the way this has shaped out and the fact that a few editors keep wasting everyone's time with endless discussions and move warring.--Cúchullain /c 17:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Cúchullain@ So then why are you wasting everyone's time? Per longstanding consensus and WP guidelines, this article belongs at "X language". It should never have been moved in the first place, but the closing admin didn't know what they were doing. You are being a hypocrite by demanding evidence to restore the status quo that was never required to violate our guidelines to begin with. — kwami (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I think you know that that's not the way to speak to someone you're trying to persuade of your point of view.--Cúchullain /c 17:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Moratorium proposal

Shall we propose a break from future move/renaming discussions? If so, how long (id est how many years)? --George Ho (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree with a moratorium, but it should be 3 or 6 months to let us see how the page views shape up.--Cúchullain /c 17:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
You're being a hypocrite. You do not require evidence for the move you approve of that you demand for a restoration of consensus. — kwami (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Evidently what should have happened was to have an ANI review of the original move, but instead I was advised to simply file a new move request. Now that I have, you've decided that's a problem. — kwami (talk) 17:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a classic example of a group of editors speedily moving an article away from a long-standing, consensus-based, and policy-supported name and then demanding a pause for the "dust to settle" before returning to the prior title. It is wikilawyering at the least. And something quite unwelcome in Misplaced Pages at the worst. Move the article back to its policy- and consensus-backed title, then have a pause while the rebellious editors try to prove their point. --Taivo (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Categories: