Usapan:Kumpuwesto

message: Why is it okay to insert English terms retaining its own spelling and why it's not okay to insert Spanish terms especially technical not normally adopted as Filipino (e.g. compuesto for compound; sulfato for sulfate).  Spanish terms has similar syllabary and pronunciation as Filipino compared to English.  Also, the new Filipino (not Tagalog) alphabet and spelling system now includes all the foreign letters (C, J, F, V, Z, X, Q) formerly reserved to formal nouns.  Should we let the readers decide which terms to adopt or use if both English and Spanish terms are the only logical choice in the absence of Tagalog or other Filipino language equivalent or as part of the Filipinization of sciences that we include other possibilities.  Should we give technical Spanish a chance to compete with technical English knowing that most if not all translators are educated and proficient in English than Spanish.  It's unfair just to limit the current borrowing from English since Spanish was an intellectual and legal language of the Philippines for 300 years.
replies: text: As a principle, we would prefer respelling all foreign words (excluding names, por supuesto) according to the rules of Filipino. However, due to the nature of English spelling, there are many ways of correctly pronouncing English words, and it would be plain wrong for us to suggest a single spelling based on a single pronunciation. (And here we are just talking about North American English, which is more or less the standard in the Philippines.)

text: As for Spanish-origin words specifically, well, Spanish has diphthongs; Tagalog does not. That is why, to remedy that, we respell, among others, Spanish ai as ay to retain the /ay/ pronunciation. The ue in compuesto would thus be spelled we if we are to preserve correct pronunciation (which is certainly almost a non-issue with regard to Spanish as its orthography—on which its pronunciation is almost always based unlike in English—is regular).

text: With regard to the use of “new” letters which have sound equivalents in Tagalog (such as c and x which can be rendered k and ks respectively), custom (SANGFIL, 1996) suggests that their use is limited to names of people and “mga bagong hiram na salita” whose spellings should be retained until assimilated fully into Tagalog.

text: As for the term which should be used, kompwesto or kompawnd, I’d gravitate towards the latter (even its spelling, which has already gained currency). It’d just be much more intuitive for the Pinoy, in my opinion. (In how many Pinoy brains will kompwesto register, compared to kompawnd?) We’re not, after all, and as you suggested, here to prescribe general usage for the most part. —Život 10:02, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

message: Hi, mayroon ng artikulo tungkol sa Kompawnd.  Ano ang pagkakaiba niya rito? Mukhang nadoble ang artikulo.  Maaari na lang siguro ilipat o i-merge ang laman ng artikulong ito sa Kompawnd article tapos magiging redirect na lang ang laman nito.  --Jojit fb 07:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ayan, inayos ko na lang. :-) --Jojit fb 08:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Sang-ayon sa Patnubay sa Pagsasalin (pp. 123–124) nina Almario, et al., na inilathala ng NCCA, dapat daw ibatay ang pamagat ng artikulong ito sa Inggles dahil daw

text: Nagkakaisa ang mga eksperto sa Filipino na lahat ng katawagan at simbolong pang-agham ay ibatay sa Ingles. Ingles din ang mabilisang pinupulutan ng mga peryodista at anawnser sa mass media.
Para sa kasong ito, dapat ba natin sundin ang NCCA o hindi? Sa kaso ng Tsile o Chile, sinundan ang NCCA. —Život 07:33, 12 Nobyembre 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Kompawnd o Kompuesto?