"

The previous comment makes several incorrect statements about Baybayin's status as a script, the origin of its name, and what ""Sanskrit"" refers to. Baybayin is a single script, like Latin, Arabic or Devanagari in all their variations are single scripts. It is most definitely not a group or family of scripts; no separate ""Sulat Bisaya"" ever existed, and authentic Kapampangan script was merely the most notable regional variant of Baybayin. There were no special regional variations despite the false impression given by inaccurately wirtten samples of Baybayin from various regions as written by foreigners not used to writing the letters correctly. Scott, Villamor and especially Santamaría have shown clearly that the handwriting of different people in the same region, even from the same document, shows moer differences than the so-called ""regional scripts"" written in distorted handwriting by foreigners. Modern ""Kulitan"" or ""Súlat Kapampangan"" is the recent invention of one person who took a 19th century French visitor's interpretation of Baybayin letters as written in an unknown source or sources from Pampanga, and combined these with a structure derived from a combination of Kawi and Korean Han'gul. It is a modern constructed script with no relation to how it was actually written when it was used as part of daily life. The name Baybayin originated with Tagalog speakers, not the Spanish, who at first just called it ""sus letras"" (their letters). Baybayin comes from a word that originally meant to put things in a sequence or a particular order.  Sanskrit is a language, not a script or group of scripts. All these facts can be checked in the existing literature. Anyone who wants to write an accurate article should consult at the very least Paul Morrow's web site ""Ang Baybayin"", Santamaría's ""El ""Baybayin"" en el archivo de Santo Tomas"", Villamor's ""The Old Philippine Writing/La Antigua Escritura Filipina"", and Marcilla y Martín's ""Estudio de los Antiguos Alfabetos Filipinos"". 
  "