Talk:Languages of the Philippines

message: I just want to mention that there is a pretty neat illustration of a Philippine language tree at . Some of you may have the book on your bookshelves and, if not, it is surely available in many libraries. I've thought several times that a similar illustration might be useful in this article, but my own artictic ability is near zero. Scott's illustration is a simplified version of the tree in  (which I have not read). Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "''Philippine languages comparison chart''" section 

message: ATTENTION
* If you're going to edit the chart take a close look at the text that precedes the chart.
* If you are going to make edits, don't put "correction". That is why I've commented out the Sinama row, which had "correction" and was not placed properly in the table. The tables states that the ordering is from NORTH to SOUTH; pay attention! I had to research the language and it's way down south (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sama_people), nowhere close to where Ivatan is spoken. Also, it is commented out because I cannot verify the "corrections" made as valid.
* The Romblamanon row is missing entries. AGAIN, take a look at how to format tables, etc...
Joemaza (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "''Philippine languages comparison chart''" section: FORMATTING AND EDITS 

message: I just edited the article as it said that "Esperanto" was the original official language of the Philippines and became the lingua franca in the late nineteenth century!  Umm, I think maybe you mean Spanish?
Mhulbert (talk) 16:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Esperanto 

message: I propose that the following remarks be deleted from the National and official languages section:
This is in contrast to Morocco, where Spanish is spoken in the northern part of that country and is becoming a popular language to learn, after French among the country's northern inhabitants. In Francophone Africa, the use of French, despite being a native language of only a minority of people who live in that part of Africa, is actively promoted, even if (as in Algeria, Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia) it is not an official one.
Fascinating — but irrelevant.
--174.16.21.62 (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to delete remarks. 

message: The article says that most languages spoken in the Philippines are of the Malayo-Polynesian language family. Isn't Tagalog which is spoken by the majority of the population off an Indic Script and language, Sanskrit. It should therefore be classified under the Indo-European language family.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.206.125 (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion 

message: "The Asa Familia own 3 of the languages": what does this mean? In particular, what is the Asa Familia, and what does it mean for it/them to "own" three languages? Mcswell (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. It was added by an anon in November 2011 in this November 2011 edit -- the only edit to date from that IP address. It is unclear and unsupported. I've removed it. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asa Familia 

message: The newly created article Filipino_as_Philippine_Official_Language seems to me to be a WP:POVFORK from this article.  I ask those who edit on this topic to give it a look and if it does not represent a Neutral Point of View to merge it to this article and delete.  If it does represent a NPOV, please ignore this message.  Thanks! -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alert to possible POV fork 

message: The Philippine Languages Per Region Map seems to be an incomplete and confusing version of the Languages of the Philippines Map at the top of the article.  While it can be argued that Tagalog-based Filipino is widely spoken in almost every region of the Philippines, I do not think it is particularly appropriate to color-label regions like the Palawan Province as a primarily Tagalog-speaking region. I request that this map be removed or reevaluated/revised for accuracy.  Bcatabas (talk) 09:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language Maps 

message: This article mentions the Albay Bikol language in a few places, and in one place cites a source (previously with an inline EL, which I've just Ref-ized). There's still a problem, though. The link points http://www.ethnologue.com/language/bhk -- that is not a dead link, but the page it points to says that there's a problem. Following a link from that page led me here, which says that  Albay Bikol is no longer considered to be a language, and has been split into four other languages: Buhi'non Bikol [ubl]; Libon Bikol [lbl]; Miraya Bikol [rbl]; West Albay Bikol [fbl]. See also this. Could someone who knows more about this than I do please fix this up? I imagine that the Albay Bikol language article also needs work. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:   Albay Bikol language 

message: are there census results for Languages of the Philippines?--Kaiyr (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Census  

message: Here, I've reverted this revert. I base this on having looked at the "THE LANGUAGE SITUATION OF THE PHILIPPINES" section of this paper which is not the supporting source cited in the article, but which does say "between 120 and 171" and which does cite the same source cited in the article in support of the 120 figure. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert re number of languages 

message: This edit caught my eye, and there have been at least a couple of related earlier edits (see above section).
The question in my mind is whether "Regional language" and "Language used by the DepEd for mother tongue-based education" are equivalent. Offhand, I would think not. Back in 1991, R.A. 7104 created the Commission on the Filipino Language. That Act intrnally defines the term "Regional language" as "the lingua franca or the commonly spoken language of a region." That seems like a reasonable definition to me. One might have expected the Commission to publish a list, but I don't know whether one was ever published. Some sources do exist, though, which speak of "eight major regional languages of the Philippines". At least one source lists the eight. I suggest we use those eight, cite supporting sources, and possibly supply a clarifying footnote describing the article's criteria for inclusion in the list. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regional languages 

message: I've removed a source citation from the article and replaced it with a different one. The removed citation read:
That citation linked to this short paper from 1999 on the Brigham Young University website. 
This removal came about as a consequence of my reversion of this edit, which removed the assertion that English is an official language of the Philippines from the article with an edit summary saying, "In the citation it is stated that English is NOT an official language of the Philippines".
The citation referred to in that edit summary is the citation of the Stevens source which I have removed. The Stevens source does say, in part, "Even though English is no longer the official language of the Philippines, ...". I've replaced the citation of the Stevens source with a citation of Article XIV, Section 7 of the 1987 constitution of the Philippines, which reads, "For purposes of communication and instruction, the official languages of the Philippines are Filipino and, until otherwise provided by law, English."
Depending on who J. Nicole Stevens might be and why the paper is on the BYU website, this removal action by me may be contrary to WP:DUE. If citation of the Stevens source is to be reintroduced to this article, it ought to be balanced by citation of a reliable source asserting that English does have official language status in the Philippines, and the apparent contradiction here should probably be discussed in the article. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  J. Nicole Stevens source 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Languages of the Philippines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070616101625/http://www.multilingual-matters.net/jmmd/019/0487/jmmd0190487.pdf to http://www.multilingual-matters.net/jmmd/019/0487/jmmd0190487.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120701082957/http://www.philippinealmanac.com/2010/07/528/the-cultural-influences-of-india-china-arabia-and-japan.html to http://www.philippinealmanac.com/2010/07/528/the-cultural-influences-of-india-china-arabia-and-japan.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160430171832/http://www.embassyofindonesia.org/wordpress/?page_id=1105 to http://www.embassyofindonesia.org/wordpress/?page_id=1105
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150621051322/http://globalnation.inquirer.net/cebudailynews/opinion/view/20091011-229561/The-Indian-in-the-Filipino to http://globalnation.inquirer.net/cebudailynews/opinion/view/20091011-229561/The-Indian-in-the-Filipino
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070616101625/http://www.multilingual-matters.net/jmmd/019/0487/jmmd0190487.pdf to http://www.multilingual-matters.net/jmmd/019/0487/jmmd0190487.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: hello, how are you2405:204:A091:302D:53:84F5:34FA:9862 (talk) 08:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  General sentence 

message: I do not speak Butuanon but the Butuanon translation of the saying "Ang hindi lumingon sa pinanggalingan ay hindi makakarating sa paroroonan" is in Cebuano and is an incorrect translation.
It reads "Kadtong dili kahibalo molingi sa iyang atubangan, sigurado jud ma dam-ag."  The Tagalog translation is "Ang hindi marunong lumingon (o tumingin) sa harapan, siguradong madadapa."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.92.13.90 (talk) 04:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Butuanon translation of the Tagalog saying "Ang hindi lumingon..." 

message: This edit, changing a number from 18 to 19, caught my eye; I counted 19 rows in the table and I was not able to locate a copy of the source described (the Philippine census from the year 2000) online. I didn't spend a lot of time nailing it down, but I see that this pre-table version of the article uses the same description over a list of 18 entries.Apparently, an entry was added in the interim; some other data looks changed as well. I'm wondering (1) did the 19th entry come from Philippine Census 2000 as had been indicated for 18 entries? (2) if not, where did it come from? (3) is the list still faithful to that source? (4) 2000 was 20 years ago; is there a later/better source? Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , I think the 19th entry, the artificial language Eskayan was only added post-table from a section above it "Eskayan is an artificial auxiliary language created as the embodiment of a Bohol nation in the aftermath of the Philippine–American War. It is used by about 500 people." Not sure who added it though. PyroFloe (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the entry. Given the fact that literally dozens of real languages have more speakers, its inclusion here is first of all undue. Eskayan has a great appeal to conlangers, but its representation here in various articles about the Philippines has grown out of proportion. –Austronesier (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Native speakers 

message: Here, I have re-removed an assertion re this which was re-inserted with the explanation: (Rv gf unsourced, unlikely it wasn't official). WP:BURDEN says, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material," The burden is on adding or restoring, not on removing, and the opinion of a WP editor expressed in an edit summary re likeliness is not a reliable supporting source. I note that the article does not clarify who Luciano de la Rosa  might be and that no Luciano de la Rosa  article exists. I do find mention of that name here and here. Neither linked item is not an RS and the latter is in Spanish -- out of curiosity, I ran a snippet through Google Translate with the following results:
I imagine that Spanish must have been accepted under the Spanish colonizers for official use, though I don't know whether or where such acceptance might have been officially certified. I know that Spanish is or has been asserted in various WP articles to have been the official language of the First Philippine Republic; I believe that is based on unreliable interpretation by WP editors of an implication in an uncited primary source. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Your revert added specific other specific literacy claims and an unattributed quotation. I have removed those and the de la Rosa sentence. CMD (talk) 15:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake. Looking at that, I see that three edits were reverted; My comments above were in re the latest of the three and I only intended to revert that one. Thanks for fixing my mistake there. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish in the early 20th century 

message: Here are the figures from the 24th ed. of Ethnologue (2021):
        	L1        	L2
English 	28,700    	50,000,000
Filipino	---       	45,000,000
Tagalog 	20,000,000	---
What Ethnologue does here is to classify native speakers as Tagalog-speakers, while L2-speakers are classified as speaking 'Filipino' (next to their native language). Since native Tagalog speakers by definition also can be counted at the same time as speakers of Filipino, we have a figure of 65,000,000 Filipino speakers, which exceeds the number of English (L1+L2) speakers. –Austronesier (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filipino - Tagalog - English