Talk:Cebuano language

message: The latin word for (2 duhá) is duo.--Jondel 05:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Latin ultimately comes from Proto Indo-European, and some forms of Malay/Austronesian languages have elements of PIE, meaning somewhere they had a common ancestor. In Southeast Asia, most of it is from Sanskrit and Arabic. Visayan Tulo (three) is also very close to Latin Tres and Sanskrit Trayas.--Obsidi♠nSoul06:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: 2 duhá

message: i believe this word comes from the Castillian (Spanish) word especial, not special. Can anyone provide proof it didn't exist until the American colonization of the Philippines, if not I don't think this is a great example since there is some contention over which colonizer implanted this word into the Cebuano language. 201.21.96.49 07:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a native Visayan speaker, I also speak tagalog and english, and yes I agree. However it should be noted that very few English words actually get adopted into filipino languages without being hispanized first. It's a quirk. 'Airplane' for example, while colloquially called 'Erpleyn' (or something like that, haha), by uneducated people is referred to as 'Eroplano' (or 'Aeroplano') more formally in Visayan. This applies to new English terms as well which did not exist back then. Like scientific fields - Neurology for example, noes not become Neurolodyi as expected but is hispanized first before being spelled in the Visayan way - Neurolohiya. The same thing happens in most other filipino languages.--Obsidi♠nSoul 06:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: But that is not the case with espisyal. Words like Neurolohiya were borrowed in modern times and hispanized. Espisyal was borrowed from Spanish "especial". I am quite sure Filipinos in Rizal's time know and said the Spanish word especial (but pronouncing it our way). Neurolohiya, on the other hand, is not something that Filipinos in Spanish times would be using in regular conversation. Technical terms look awkward when borrowed from English, and are often "filipinized" by "hispanizing" them first. In the case of Eroplano, the original English word was Aeroplane, so it was easy to hispanize it to eroplano. Airplane is a newer word. In fact, "eroplano" probably pre-dated "airplane", since aeroplane was the accepted English word then.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.201.129.73 (talk) 13:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  espisyal (special) 

message: I didn't get to explain using the edit summary feature the edit that I made, which had to do mostly with this. Anyway I hope no one minds too much. --Pare Mo 08:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CFL 

message: Does anyone know the representative IPA for "Cebuano?"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.203.191 (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPA 

message: # gane: hearsay word, expresses the information in the sentence is second-hand; he said, she said, they said, it was said, allegedly, reportedly, supposedly.
The word gane, which means, “he said/she said/they said”, is sometimes joined to real translations of “he said/she said”, which is matud niya, and “they said”, which is matud nila. It is also joined to the Cebuano of “you said”, which is matud nimo. But this time, gane means “supposedly, reportedly, or allegedly.”
Matud niya gane. 
He/she supposedly said.
Matud nila gane. 
They supposedly said.
Matud nimo gane. 
You supposedly said.
Jordz (talk) 09:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: agree, we also pronounce it as 'ganì' out here (accent added to indicate glottal stop). But then again, Cebuano as spoken by actual Cebuanos is notoriously 'softer' and archaic.--Obsidi♠nSoul 06:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed content: gane 

message: Moved this section to Cebuano grammar#Interrogative words. --Pare Mo (talk) 08:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Asa'' and ''hain''

message: Nipalit (a)ko ug isda sa taboan.
Gipalitan siya ug isda ni Pedro sa taboan.
With these in mind, where is this section talked about in the article??
ang,
ug,
sa
ang mga,
ug mga,
sa mga
ug and ug mga is equivalent to a or an and its plural equivalents of ...(pl)
Nipalit ko ug isda. I bought a fish.
Nipalit ko ug mga isda. I bought fish(pl).
ug can also mean and..
Why is the ug marker not included?Si lapu lapu (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Case Markers 

message: I would like to know why my output on specifiers (nga, og, ka, y) is summarily deleted.
122.54.153.40 (talk)Gzosef way Hanaw  —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specifiers 

message: In the info box in the upper right, the article says "Official language in	Regional language in the Philippines."  To me this implies that Cebuano is an official language in Cebu or some other region or province.  This implies that the Philippines is like many countries and has different official languages in differ provinces or political sub-groupings. But that is not the case, right?  There are only two official language -- Filipino (Tagalog) and English.  Is Cebuano an official official language anywhere?  Is it taught in school?  Used officially by schools or other government agencies?  In other words, is it like Welsh in Wales or even Scottish Gaelic? --Bruce Hall (talk) 13:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No it is not. Philippine law as of now does not define any official languages specific to Philippine regions.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.29.112.174 (talk) 18:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Official language?

message: This article seems to be mostly about the language from a technical perspective, so to speak, i.e. about grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation and the like. There is little about the history of the language or the cultural and historical significance of it.  Where did it come from?  Who speaks it?  What are the political and cultural issues surrounding it? Etc.  For general interest readers who have little to no interest in the details of the internal structure of the language -- in other words encyclopedia readers -- there is little information, I think.  Perhaps expanding it would be in order. --Bruce Hall (talk) 13:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe a format more like the one on Scottish Gaelic with separate articles on grammar and other issues, like Scottish Gaelic grammar and Scottish Gaelic orthography. Another example is Welsh language. --Bruce Hall (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

text: "tuba nio nipa" and "minumcubil" are more likely "tuba [ki]ni og nipa" and "moinom ko bi" as "tuba niyog" and "moinom tubig" are non-
logical and non-grammatical  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.190.129.165 (talk) 09:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: More history and context, and maybe less technical

message: I don't speak Cebuano, but one of the examples of imperatives given seemed weird to me.  The second example says: b) "Ako nang gi sugba." = I already grilled it.  Now in English there is no way that that sentance could be imperative, it's giving information (indicative I would presume), is that different in Cebuano, or is the sentence just there to illustrate the difference between the two aspects?  If it was just there as contrast, then that should probably be made clearer. thanks.130.216.234.97 (talk) 05:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imperative 

message: Ang Dila Natong Bisaya
http://archive.org/details/AngDilaNatongBisaya
Rajmaan (talk) 07:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar on Cebuano 

message: A great deal of this article appears to be unsourced original research.  As well, a large part of it seems to be a detailed grammar manual for the language, which is outside the scope of Wikipedia.  But for now, I'll just concentrate on the lack of sources.
Editors have in the past challenged some of this unsourced material by adding  tags in order to allow some time for sources to be added. After quite some time had passed and no editors located sources, some of the challenged material was removed.  Recently, an editor has added back a very large amount of unsourced material, without adding the requested citations. I don't think that is quite right, so am bringing it to the Talk page to discuss here.
In my view, if citations are not added for challenged material, then after some reasonable period of time, the challenged material should be removed from the Wikipedia article mainspace, until such time as an editor or editors come along who choose to help make it explicitly verifiable.  Does anyone have any special guidelines applicable to this article that might allow for unsourced material to stay in this article, beyond the ordinary Wikipedia policy for such?  N2e (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  IMO, this article is an impressive labour of love. But I did delete copious amounts of text from an amazingly huge article, which largely seems to be a learning lesson. Wikipedia is not a Berlitz academy. The article's creator restored it and I didn't feel like pursuing it because frankly it's not an area of expertise of mine.  All the Filipino languages will need to be treated equally, and like I said, this is not a Berlitz academy. Quis separabit? 03:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Much/most of what you deleted at one time has been added back to the article.  Seems rather unencyclopedic to me to have so much Ceuano grammar details here.  N2e (talk) 04:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations and sources are needed

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Visayan languages which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 03:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: Given that this is now the second largest Wikipedia by number of articles, it is probably appropriate to have the IPA pronunciation of the language itself on this page. English is generally ambiguous as to whether c is pronounced as an alveolar fricative or a velar stop. From the Cebu article, I gather that it is the former. 157.127.239.146 (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, now I see it in the info box. Can we put it inline with the article, as well, like Tagalog language? 157.127.239.146 (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation of Language 

message: "Cebuano, or its ancestor language, has been spoken since the Proto-Austronesian era (c. 6000 years ago) in the Sugbu (Cebu) heartland"
How is this possible? It only takes hundreds of years for languages to evolve or fork. For example, Latin was the language of the Roman empire just 2000 years ago, but it has now broken up into the Romance languages. 4000 years ago was when the Proto-Malayo-Polynesian (PMP) branch started to diverge, and it is unthinkable for Cebuano to already have its own branch then. Did Cebuano exist before PMP? It was only 1200 years ago when the ancestor of Meso-Philippine languages (Tagalog, Bikol, Proto-Visayan) and still a few centuries later did Proto-Visayan break up into Cebuano, Ilonggo, and Samar-Leyte. Cebuano as a distinct branch is only at most a thousand years old (though of course the language of a thousand years ago would be different from today), and the Tagalog branch is only about a couple of centuries older. Isn't this quote misleading? If it refers to Cebuano as part of Proto-Austronesian (PAN), then we can also say that the rest of the Philippines spoke PAN, since the movement of PAN is southward from Formosa. If it is trying to project glory on the Cebuano language, there are other ways to do it than misleading the reader into thinking that the language already existed 6000 years ago when it is in fact only a thousand years old.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.201.129.73 (talk) 13:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  6000 years? 

message: I think it is quite interesting that the Cebuano wikipedia is one of the largest Wikipedias, comparable to the English Wikipedia. Maybe this only warrants a sentence somewhere or a small section explaining it, but this is how I found this page, so I think it is warrented.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dheraj.G (talk • contribs) 13:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible new section 

message: Please update the number of native speakers of Cebuano/Binisaya, because 2010 is already outdated. Jumark27 (talk) 14:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mactan%E2%80%93Cebu_International_Airport 103.161.60.81 (talk) 10:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of Native Speakers 

message: I already moved it but someone put it back as a separate section, including my added paragraphs. And also the loanwords section should be in the vocabulary and you don't have to enumerate them. 124.217.16.80 (talk) 12:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move the numbers to the vocabulary section. 

message: Under §Nomenclature it’s explained how the Spanish word "Cebuano" come about. That’s good but not enough — it’s still necessary to explain how/why did it enter English unmodified and was not anglicized akin to, say, "German", which has analogous etymology. I know that’s because the U.S. took over as colonial rulers in 1898 (?) and at this time acquired toponyms were not being anglicized for a long time already (cp., say, "San Francisco" instead of "Saint Francis" or even "Detroit" instead of "Strait", but "New Orleans" not "Nouvelle Orleans"), but it’s worth a contextualizing sentence. Tuvalkin (talk) 08:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of language