Talk:kinig

Usage of "Nginig" over "Kinig"
Isn't it that in modern conversation, even though we were to say that "kinig" is the original root word, no one says "kinig" to mean "trembling"? Don't people say "nginig"? Like "Naririnig ang nginig sa boses niya". If that's the case, "kinig" would be obsolete or archaic, at least for the root word. Mar vin kaiser (talk) 02:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @Mar vin kaiser Though rare in Manila because of the more common use of the pang- prefix, I think kuminig-kinig (tho few) still exists to be marked obsolete?
 * Also some links to consider:
 * https://www.facebook.com/share/p/eYaNzUDPcMgBjniN/?mibextid=oFDknk
 * https://www.facebook.com/share/p/dR3wVyUbgj7vqjys/?mibextid=oFDknk
 * https://www.facebook.com/share/v/CYj9goEFgPdQnAbK/?mibextid=oFDknk

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/SpxrCc19PnzqGFJV/?mibextid=oFDknk Ysrael214 (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * In that case, I think "kinig" would be labelled as "obsolete", while "kumikinig-kinig" not be labelled as such, while "nginig" be indicated as the root word that people use in isolation. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 02:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mar vin kaiser The third one just uses kuminig not kuminig-kinig, and those are just my examples because my searches goes to hearing more, but the word being obsolete isnt solely based in social media presence though. Though, I think based on the results, the word is still used as "kinig" in Bulacan Ysrael214 (talk) 03:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mar vin kaiser Moreover I just did a quick search not a thorough one, but I dont think obsolete nor archaic can be concluded right away with that. Ysrael214 (talk) 03:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * In that case, maybe a "dialectal" label is appropriate, together with an archaic one. All I can say is that based on my experience, if you say "kinig" in Metro Manila, people in general wouldn't think of "trembling" but "listening". --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 03:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * See what I did for . --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 03:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mar vin kaiser https://books.google.com.ph/books/content?id=2JJkAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA307&img=1&pgis=1&dq=ginaw&sig=ACfU3U2hZy6CecOJItcQBT5AAfI1nJhT6A&edge=0
 * It's weird to call archaic when I just did a facebook search, results popup, how about what Im doing to avoid the dialectal obsolete ambiguity (like does it mean it was dialectal before but got obsolete?) try (now dialectal, Bulacan). Ysrael214 (talk) 03:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mar vin kaiser
 * Also doesnt archaic mean you use those to sound ancient, but the words are in contemporary use such as in bible or in historical media? (based on obsolete, archaic difference in wiktionary) Example I can think of right now is kalatas. people know it well but who uses kalatas in common speech if not to sound old or educational settings.
 * Dialectal words as archaic is like saying "kampit" is sounding old just because you only know kutsilyo when kampit is still in use, and not meant to sound old. Ysrael214 (talk) 03:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The label (now dialectal, Bulacan) is fine, actually. And I think you're right. In Metro Manila colloquial speech, "kinig" in the sense of "trembling" is not archaic, but obsolete, since people don't know it here in Metro Manila (as far as my experience goes). So the label "now dialectal" makes sense, but maybe we could put a label to indicate that people in Metro Manila don't know it colloquially? Maybe "obsolete in Metro Manila"? Or perhaps it's unnecessary because words we label as "dialectal" would not be familiar to Metro Manila people anyway. Any comments from what I said? And also, what do you think of the case in where we often just say ? --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 04:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mar vin kaiser obsolete in Metro Manila is redundant I think, and adding obsolete would categorize it as an obsolete Tagalog term/sense but it's just dialectal. The "now" kinda implies that it was probably used before, maybe everywhere, but not now. Ysrael214 (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mar vin kaiser Unlike kinig, Laktaw links pangangawit with ngawit so it was maybe.. more common to use ngawit before. idk. Maybe ngawit should be the main entry with kawit as an obsolete alt form (we can change it if we find info that it's still used somewhere) Not sure. Ysrael214 (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Regarding the question for where the main entry should be, in order to make it consistent, I feel like the basis can only be either: 1.) based on which entry KWF Dictionary puts as the main entry, or, 2.) based on what Manila Tagalog uses in general. The reason for no. 1 is since it's an official guide or norm to follow. The reason for no. 2 is 1.) it's the main dialect of Tagalog and 2.) it's what foreigners would learn. Even though "kinig" might be the original form, if "nginig" is now the main form used in Manila Tagalog, I think that can be sufficient reason to move the main entry there (just like how we have other entries where the main entry is placed in the form used in Manila Tagalog and not an older, dialectal form like the main entry being in and not the earlier attested but dialectal ). --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 01:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)