Talk:Filipino language

message: <B>Filipino as an L2 Language</B>. The article cited a statistical figure of 45 million L2 users. Note that L2 defined as "a person's second language; language that is not the native language (first language or L1) of the speaker, but is learned later." Citation of this authority presents a rather unimpugnable evidence of factual information entirely nullifying other contradictory information equally cited in the article. Rendered a contradicting claim for example is the the statutory description of Filipino provided under KWL Proclamation 92-1 which in part states that "Filipino is the native dialect that is spoken and written in Metro Manila." As a matter of sheer literal sense, anything qualified a native dialect can never be classified an L2 language being a 2nd or subsequently learned language. The information there are 45 million L2 users of Filipino (the total number of speakers) makes the description provided by the Commission on Filipino Language an erroneous claim if not simply uninformed thus maliciously/irresponsibly fallacious. 
<B>Filipino as pluricentric language.</b>. The article's categorization of the Filipino a pluricentric language was cited as a plain declarative statement without providing any explanation that would, as a matter of rule, characterize Filipino as such. For a more objective informed appreciation, please consider the normative criteria provided by [Working Group on Non-Dominant Varieties of Pluricentric Languages]. Relative the Filipino, not one of the 7 criteria provided may suffice a distinctive attribute of the Filipino.
F.A.Oreas, 112.201.36.77 (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Corrections by F.A. Oreas 

message: (Your turn... --F.A.O)
Hello, I shall begin editing this article shortly. I am aware that the Filipino vs Tagalog language debate is an awry one so I am writing here the general treatment of the article that I am working on, and hereby open it to discussion.
It is the assumption that:
# Filipino is the prestige register of the Tagalog language. Thus the article shall mostly discuss its history as Filipino, its official status, ongoing debates, standardized orthographies published by the Commission on the Filipino Language, and scholarly commentaries on the Filipino-Tagalog issue.
# Filipino and Tagalog are essentially the same. As pointed above in discussions from several years ago, (non-verbatim) it is patently stupid to define Filipino as a novel language just because it uses a newer, larger alphabet than Tagalog, or that Filipino uses English loanwords extensively and Tagalog is somehow a purist standard. Tagalog is not a dead language. We should not treat it as a snapshot of the pre-Filipino (language) era, or a snapshot of the purist movement during Marcos' era. As such, discussion of grammar, linguistic categorization, phonology etc will remain in the Tagalog language article, being 100% the same after all.
# Filipino, rather than being a unitary language for the many Philippine languages, was born out of politics. The case of Filipino is unique because we cannot compare Filipino-as-standard register with Standard Swedish or Modern Standard Arabic, both of which are a standardization of diverse, mutually unintelligible dialect continua. That is why there is no logic in discussing Filipino's grammatical aspects when they're 100% the same with Tagalog. Its case is more akin to the case of Serbo-Croatian, a lingua franca in Eastern Europe, which has been standardized into Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin languages; or Hindustani and Urdu and Hindi languages. At any rate, they are all the same.
Thus I see the this Filipino language article to be more similar to the structure of Standard Swedish. I realize that working towards become a Featured Article is difficult because there is no precedent. Out of the very few Featured and Good articles on languages, none are about standard varieties; they all discuss the language itself. It would take a lot of work overhauling this article. As they say in Japan, よろしくお願いいたします。 舎利弗 (talk) 11:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Road to FA 

message: Let us not mislead the central issue of the debate. The issue is not up between Tagalog and Filipino. Rather, between Filipino and Pilipino. As far as Philippine standard semantics suggests, Tagalog is a dialect and not a language. Filipino superceded Pilino makings the later now a dead language only to realize Filipino itself a non existing language at the time it was instituted. That being the case, who would qualify whether or not the language consequently constituted purporting to be Filipino indeed is Filipino. To begin with, WHAT IS FILIPINO? 
On a side note, I encourage civility if not sophistication among us, contributors - pleas refrain using cursing words as SUPID. Respect civility. 
-- An objective note from Ferdinand A. Oreas  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.200.21.37 (talk) 12:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: .POINT OF CLARIFICATION FROM LANGUAGE ADVOCATE F.A.OREAS 

message: Under this heading, I intend to reconcile ideas not otherwise deserving of any conflicting claims as well as those ideas associated with what at a glance seem compatibly comfortable with both similarities and differences each one has but should prove to show that what seems be relative it's observed association is exactly the same absent anything that has to do with being in a company or union. Cases presented here as example particularly the most latter simply presents to us that clear suggestion that limitation of available data we have at hand denies us the chance to appreciate variables we do not usually perceive or see hence, we do not understand. Simplified, an objective observation can only be appreciated as indeed objective if in the process of data gathering, attention given to non-affective variables the same level level of perceptive attention and analytic appreciation given to identified highly affective common factors or directly connecting variances of shared units of measured (or measurable) properties.
That stated, I indulge in providing the following concluding observations, to Witt:
==="Filipino & Tagalog Are The Same"===
::<B>THE PREMISE:</B> <I>The two languages are essentially the same</I>
:::A. THE SAME
::::<I>As much as they both belong under the category Philippine Language as well as there are other categories they commonly share without one or the other claiming greater, higher or better entitlement from what the other is entitled, then we may qualify the two as the same. Sameness under the consideration is far from being essentially, significantly, or substantially the same but rather, may they are conditionally the same OR in our common terms; they are the same to some extent where more than sameness, the likeness shared is what in ordinary term called resemblance or relative similarity.</I>
:::B. ESSENTIALLY THE SAME
::<B>PROPOSED RESOLUTION</B>
Contrary Opinion By F.A. Oreas
That Fukien and Mandarin belong under the category Chinese Languages does not necessarily qualify them both as one and the same language much as German and French may not equally be classified similar just because we know of them both as languages European. 
MATTER-OF-FACT: <I><U>"Filipino and Tagalog are in no way the same."</U></I>
On the deliberation on the National Language Provision of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, Record of the Constitutional Commission Proceedings and Debate, (Vol IV, Page 152; 1 September 1986) provides the following account:
<UL style="font-family: Century Gothic;">
<LI><B>THE PRESIDENT:</B> Commissioner Ople is recognized.</span></LI>
<LI><B>MR. OPLE:</B> Madam President, xxx I think the record will have to indicate a few crucial points. Will the committee (on National Language provision) offer an explanation as to the difference between Filipino with a capital "F" and Pilipino with a capital "P" (Derived from Tagalog; both grammar and vocabulary: [Comment Supplied])?.</LI>
<LI><B>MR. BENNAGEN:</B> xxx Filipino is different from Pilipino (Standardized Tagalog [Comment supplied]) which is based on only one language, Tagalog. Filipino, on the other hand, is based on different Philippine languages. Also, Pilipino is based essentially on the language usage and peculiarities of the Tagalog group; while Filipino is based on the language usage, similarities and peculiarities of the different Philippine ethnic groups.</span></LI></UL>
I state my focal argument saying that being a <I>"legislated language"</I> (language instituted by law NOT otherwise native language), the above account speaks strongly of the Commission's legislative intent in legislating Filipino as National Language as per the 1987 Philippine Constitution particularly intending the language NOT ONE AND THE SAME as with Pilipino let alone with Tagalog.
To cite other arguments, equally irrefutable, allow me state the following:
To begin with, the Filipino Alphabet <I>(called ang "Bagong Alphabeto")</I> has 28 letters while the Pilipino and Tagalog ABaKaKa has but only 20. The Filipino Dictionary therefore necessarily includes entries not otherwise found in the old Pilipino or Tagalog Talatinigan as there are no Pilipino words entered thereto that begins with such letters as C or F. Allow me note that Pilipino and Tagalog has the same grammar and vocabulary much as the former derived from the latter Hence when the Commission speak of the difference between Pilipino and Filipino, they had in mind the same difference as with Filipino and Tagalog.
As general rule, the Tagalog (or Pilipino) language rests on the rule "Kung anong sulat (baybay) ay siyang basa, kung anong basa, siyang bigkas" (Pronounce as you read, and read as you write). We read and right Pilipino and Tagalog as syllabary; BA-BA-E. Katinig is always paired with a patinig to be able to form a sound. That is not the case in Filipino that we read and write with each letter of every word is its own distinct sound. Take the following example:
<UL style="font-family: Century Gothic">
<LI><B>FILIPINO</B>: "Phi-lip-pines" [fi-li-pins] (as it is pronounced in English)</LI>
<LI><B>PILIPINO</B>: "Phi-li-ppi-nes" [pi-li-pi-nes] (reason why "Philippines" in Pilipino is "Pilipinas" [Pi-li-pi-nas] while "Filipinas" in Spanish)
</UL>
==="No Native Speakers of Filipino"===
====MAIN PREMISE: "The native speakers of Tagalog are themselves the native speakers of Filipino"====
Contrary Opinion By F.A. Oreas
AGAIN, Filipino CANNOT be a native language. It is a language legislated. Unless you are born in the Philippines, you wouldn't know that Filipino is NOT learned at HOME. It is never a child's first language or mother tongue. FILIPINO is learned at school. Yes folks from Philippine Tagalog Region learn Tagalog language at home but no Filipino learn the Filipino language other than in school.
This fact sets the clear difference between the two languages being that Tagalog, a native language, meaning that it can be a language employed in casual conversational communication. This is not the case with FILIPINO as the language used EXCLUSIVELY in formal communications or academic discourse. Take the following for example:
<UL style="font-family: Century Gothic">
<LI><B>TAGALOG:</B> 'Di ba sabi naman sa'yo, Bunso, sasabihan mo si Nanay kung tatae ka para masamahan kita sa kubeta."</LI>
<LI><B>FILIPINO:</B> Bunso, sa susunod na dudumi, mangyaring sabihan mo ang ina at nang masamahan kita sa palikuran.</LI></UL>
The point in the above example is not merely on the difference on the use of words or the vocabulary. I wish to argue that no mother speaks with her child in the Filipino language. Unless you are to deliver a speech or you are to called by your professor to answer in a recitation, or perhaps you're writing an essay or a research paper that you will only speak or write in Filipino. You don't even talk with a friend in the Filipino language. With your superior or professor perhaps. But you talk with a friend in TAGALOG.
THAT I SPEAK AS FRIEND I FIND I NEED RAISE THESE ARGUMENTS.
-- F. A. OREAS (24 April 2022)
===Closing the discussion===
Well, the merger was not as controversial as I thought it would be. I would like to ask users Rio Hondo and Wtmitchell if they still have reservations about the proposal so that we can move on to other things, such as actual content writing. 舎利弗 (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest keeping it open, since there may be people who may think the other way.  However, while I personally agree with your position on Filipino vis-à-vis Tagalog, at the very least the article should be confined to the specific development of a "Filipino" language.  Any content then that more reasonably belongs to the Tagalog article should be moved there. (In fact, the contentious political history of Filipino is quite interesting, as most of the literature that defines Filipino as distinct from Tagalog actually comes from UP Diliman, where the Sentro ng Wikang Filipino/Center of the Filipino Language will most likely have the literature that you're looking for.) --Sky Harbor (talk) 01:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

text: I agree with Sky Harbor above. As I understand things, Resolusyon Blg. 92-1 dated 13 May 1992 said clearly and authoritatively that the Filipino language was defined as of that date as the native language, oral and written, in Metro Manila, the National Capital Region, and the other urban centers in the archipelago. Unless that has changed, and until it does, I think that linguistic details ought to be covered in the Tagalog language article. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for that source. It will be useful in writing about Filipino later on. I do not disagree with what you said. So it really boils down to the question of whether or not Filipino deserves its own article, or it could well be just a section of the Tagalog article, doesn't it? Seeing how there is consensus of everyone here, with the exception of one user, of what defines Filipino and what the article should comprise, I shall resume shortly to writing the article. Then we can see in a few days whether we should merge it or not. 舎利弗 (talk) 05:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

text: That's an odd definition.  Which sa iba pang sentrong urban are they talking about?  Half the big cities are Tagalog-speaking, but half are not.  — kwami (talk) 06:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, and even though Tagalog is generally understood in all the major cities outside Manila, the Tagalog they use is different (in vocabulary and pronunciation) from what is spoken in Manila, at least from what I have personally observed. Oh well. 舎利弗 (talk) 07:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The crux of Resolution 92-1 is that over time, the Tagalog of Manila plus the Tagalog spoken non-natively in other urban centers will form the nucleus of a "Filipino" language, largely with vocabulary differences being taken into account.  This is why in schools, words like xappo (bell pepper), kalaniyog (eggwhite) or vugi (roe) which are from other languages - and supposedly used in other urban centers but not in Manila - will form "Filipino" as a language distinct from Tagalog.  While I don't agree with this definition, this view is what is commonly taught in schools. --Sky Harbor (talk) 10:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: RECAPITULATION

message: Well, the merger was not as controversial as I thought it would be. I would like to ask users Rio Hondo and Wtmitchell if they still have reservations about the proposal so that we can move on to other things, such as actual content writing. 舎利弗 (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest keeping it open, since there may be people who may think the other way.  However, while I personally agree with your position on Filipino vis-à-vis Tagalog, at the very least the article should be confined to the specific development of a "Filipino" language.  Any content then that more reasonably belongs to the Tagalog article should be moved there. (In fact, the contentious political history of Filipino is quite interesting, as most of the literature that defines Filipino as distinct from Tagalog actually comes from UP Diliman, where the Sentro ng Wikang Filipino/Center of the Filipino Language will most likely have the literature that you're looking for.) --Sky Harbor (talk) 01:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

text: I agree with Sky Harbor above. As I understand things, Resolusyon Blg. 92-1 dated 13 May 1992 said clearly and authoritatively that the Filipino language was defined as of that date as the native language, oral and written, in Metro Manila, the National Capital Region, and the other urban centers in the archipelago. Unless that has changed, and until it does, I think that linguistic details ought to be covered in the Tagalog language article. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for that source. It will be useful in writing about Filipino later on. I do not disagree with what you said. So it really boils down to the question of whether or not Filipino deserves its own article, or it could well be just a section of the Tagalog article, doesn't it? Seeing how there is consensus of everyone here, with the exception of one user, of what defines Filipino and what the article should comprise, I shall resume shortly to writing the article. Then we can see in a few days whether we should merge it or not. 舎利弗 (talk) 05:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

text: That's an odd definition.  Which sa iba pang sentrong urban are they talking about?  Half the big cities are Tagalog-speaking, but half are not.  — kwami (talk) 06:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, and even though Tagalog is generally understood in all the major cities outside Manila, the Tagalog they use is different (in vocabulary and pronunciation) from what is spoken in Manila, at least from what I have personally observed. Oh well. 舎利弗 (talk) 07:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The crux of Resolution 92-1 is that over time, the Tagalog of Manila plus the Tagalog spoken non-natively in other urban centers will form the nucleus of a "Filipino" language, largely with vocabulary differences being taken into account.  This is why in schools, words like xappo (bell pepper), kalaniyog (eggwhite) or vugi (roe) which are from other languages - and supposedly used in other urban centers but not in Manila - will form "Filipino" as a language distinct from Tagalog.  While I don't agree with this definition, this view is what is commonly taught in schools. --Sky Harbor (talk) 10:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Closing the discussion

message: This November 9, 2003 edit, added some content merged into this article from the Pilipino article. The content came from this version of that article, and was unsupported. As added, it read:
This July 2, 2007 edit  by an anonymous user who neither provided an edit summary not cited a supporting source changed the year 1937 to 1936.
This March 6, 2007 edit added a list of reasons for the selection of Tagalog, citing this now dead unreliable geocities.com web page as a source. This archived copy of that geocities.com web page says that that information came from the book Basic Tagalog for Foreigners and Non-Tagalogs by Paraluman Aspillera ©1993 Charles E. Tuttle Publishing Co., Inc., Tokyo. Google books doesn't seem to list that book, but Amazon.com lists it here.
Getting back to the dates and what this article is asserting to have happened on those dates, this July 15, 2010 edit  by an anonymous user who neither provided an edit summary not cited a supporting source changed the November 13 date to read July 14. The wikilink to the Commission on the Filipino Language article was also changed to a redlink to Commission on Central Philippine Language (in both cases the wikilink was piped to read Surian ng Wikang Pambansa). By this time, a separate paragraph wrote of the creation of the National Language Institute, giving a 12 November date and citing an archived copy of the geocities article mentioning the Basic Tagalog for Foreigners and Non-Tagalogs book as a supporting source.
This March 11, 2012 edit changed the July 14 date format to 14 July, among other changes. In this version of the article, the relevant content read:
The cite of the geocities.com article which had mentioned the Basic Tagalog for Foreigners and Non-Tagalogs book had been moved up ahead of the list of reasons and a  tag had appeared.
I noticed that the relevant content now has no  tag. I've added a couple of  tags.
I'm guessing that a bit of research might turn up sources supporting an assertion that the National Language Institute selected Tagalog on 14 July 1937, and that the Basic Tagalog for Foreigners and Non-Tagalogs  book might support (with some degree of reliability) the reasons listed by article. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:59, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  On 14 July 1936 ... 

message: By 1898 the common language was Spanish, spoken by around 70% of the population - Not convincing and irritating
Writers from Spain wrote their personal observations about how barely was Spanish spoken during Spain's twilight days in the Philippines. How did it happen that within a year Spanish as a language was heard everywhere?
Filipinas por España: Narración episódica de la rebelión en el archipiélago filipino, Volume 2 By Emilio Reverter Delmas, Printed Centro editorial de A. Martín, 1897 - Philippines     This writer was narrating Rizal's death as well as the insurrection that followed.  Clearly he was describing how Spanish was BARELY SPOKEN IN THE PHILIPPINES.
Page 445 "The natives have no knowledge of our Spanish language. It's almost the same as it was during Legazpi's time. They barely understand us and we do not understand the natives, not little, not much. The leyes de Indias (Laws on Education) that has been much talked about has never been complied with and they are dead letters.  The same as other laws on the teaching of the Spanish language."
El gran problema de las reformas en Filipinas: planteado por el Español ..By Camilo Millan y Vellanueva,Consejero Ponente de Administración y ex gobernador civil de varias provincias del archipielago -J. Lafont, 1897 - Philippines 
Page 36 - "Just stop by unexpectedly in a school in any town to be convinced that the gap reigns such that very few students understand or can get by with Spanish. Very few students write fairly. Students only know their Cathecisms in their own local language.  This will sound sad but it is very true that 9/10 of the children of each town has not set foot not even once in the assigned school where he should have been going"
Filipinas y sus habitantesMain Author: González y Martín, R. Published: Béjar, Estab. tip. de la viuda de Aguilar, 1896.  
Page 98 - "in spite of the four long centuries that Spain has owned and dominated the Philippines, the elegant and rich Spanish language is barely  known and spoken.  In the Philippines 8/10 or 9/10 of the natives have no knowledge of  Spanish.  Without changing the current circumstances in the Archipelago,  it will be difficult if not impossible for natives to accept the mother tongue of the country."
Diccionario de filipinismos: con la revisión de lo que al respecto lleva publicado la Real academia española By Wenceslao Emilio Retana-Imprenta de la Casa Editorial Bailly-Baillière, 1921 
Page 2 "When the Spanish domination in the Philippines ceased, only the privileged were speaking Spanish. The curious phenomenon is that nowadays Spanish is spoken more than it was spoken and written when Spain was in the Philippines."
"more than it was spoken and written when Spain was in the Philippines" Wenceslao Retana said that as well as Henry Ford who authored Woodrow Wilson: The Man and His Work By Henry Jones Ford - Princeton March 1916. Neither of the two authors said that the increment in the number of Spanish speakers was by leaps and bounds. Henry Jones Ford immediately followed his statement on the increased number of Spanish speakers with the following:
Page 217 - "Meanwhile the hold of native dialect is apparently not shaken at all but on the contrary its use is being strengthened by the activity of patriotic sentiment. Native dialect is the medium through which the abundant literature of Filipino politics reaches the masses and at present it looks as if the vernacular will be the permanent channel of popular thought and feeling"
This is what Henry Ford wrote about the current languages in use during 1916:
P. 213 - "The Filipino gentry speak Spanish and the masses speak native dialects which are not low languages but are refined and capable instruments of thought producing poetry drama and romantic literature although deficient in science"IsaLang (talk) 05:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  By 1898 the common language was Spanish, spoken by around 70% of the population- Inflated number 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Filipino language. 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 http://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 http://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/20081230040958/http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2007/sept/02/yehey/top_stories/20070902top2.html to http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2007/sept/02/yehey/top_stories/20070902top2.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081230041933/http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2007/sept/03/yehey/metro/20070903met6.html to http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2007/sept/03/yehey/metro/20070903met6.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081230042645/http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2007/sept/04/yehey/metro/20070904met9.html to http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2007/sept/04/yehey/metro/20070904met9.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This is concerning the first few sentences in the article. these seem to be rather harsh and not based on factual evidence. They also could be offensive to the Tagalog speaking people. This is definitely not something that should exist on a Wikipedia article.
parts of concerning language are:
Fascist Manilla
FAKE national language  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yugimumoto1 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a question 

message: "The first dictionary of Tagalog was written by the Franciscan Pedro de San Buenaventura [...] A latter book of the same name was written by Czech Jesuit missionary Paul Klein at the beginning of the 18th century. [...] He wrote the first dictionary..."
So which is it? They can't *both* have written the first Tagalog dictionary. Nuttyskin (talk) 15:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancy 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Filipino language. 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/20080127174205/http://www.census.gov.ph/data/sectordata/sr05153tx.html to http://www.census.gov.ph/data/sectordata/sr05153tx.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140522065757/http://globalnation.inquirer.net/news/news/view/20070618-71865/New_center_to_document_Philippine_dialects?ModPagespeed=noscript to http://globalnation.inquirer.net/news/news/view/20070618-71865/New_center_to_document_Philippine_dialects?ModPagespeed=noscript
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130604230158/http://globalnation.inquirer.net/news/news/view/20070822-84080/3-Bulacan-courts-to-use-Filipino-in-judicial-proceedings to http://globalnation.inquirer.net/news/news/view/20070822-84080/3-Bulacan-courts-to-use-Filipino-in-judicial-proceedings
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131012073429/http://www.ncca.gov.ph/downloads/balanghay.pdf to http://www.ncca.gov.ph/downloads/balanghay.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) 17:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why the article Tagalog language are there? The Filipino and Tagalog are the same national language of the Philippines. So you merge in Tagalog language article. The language are same. So, if you want to merge it, you disambiguate the article, thanks. --Cyrus noto3at bulaga Talk to me 08:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: See relevant info at Talk:Tagalog language#Linguistic basis vs. Standardized form -- who determines whether two languages are separate?. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filipino = Tagalog? 

message: I added that it was distantly related to Hawaiian as an Austronesian language, but that edit got reverted because it wasn’t cited. How can I cite this or someone else adds it? Bernspeed (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I may be the reverter, here or somewhere, perhaps in some other article which led to this here; I vaguely recall something like this, but not the details. Anyhow, my first-blush reactions are (1) Filipino is a still-evolving artificial language currently based largely on Tagalog but with a constitutional mandate from 1987 saying, "As it evolves, it shall be further developed and enriched on the basis of existing Philippine and other languages.", (2) this detail may be too far down in the weeds for this article, (3) if this detail re Hawaiian is relevant here, similar details re other languages are also probably relevant. I did do some looking around starting at the Austronesian languages article and saw what looked like some relevant info in the intro and the first bullet point in the Syntax section. It looks like some more info can be found in  Hope that helps. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship to Hawaiian 

message: I get the feeling it may have at some point. Also, the newest topics in this forum are…strange :) to say the least BadConlangNumber7021 (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably. Many articles are. Do you have something specific you're concerned about? --Onorem (talk) 22:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was this article vandalized? 

message: mahal ko pamilya ko
4633
46339 112.204.174.55 (talk) 09:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:   Masayahin at tapat sa kapwa