Wiktionary talk:About Tagalog

Tagalog Verbs
Moved from User talk:TagaSanPedroAko

Hi! Thanks again for adding Tagalog entries into Wiktionary. By the way, I just wanted to discuss Tagalog verbs, because a mistake that many small dictionaries make is to mark Tagalog root words like bili and takbo as verbs, when they are only verbs when added with an affix. Quoting Vito C. Santos, he says, "It is important to remember that, grammatically, Tagalog or Pilipino has no root verbs, except in some instances when they are used in the imperative. Being an agglutinative language, Tagalog verbs are formed by affixation". All Tagalog root words that are misconstrued as verbs are actually nouns and adjectives, that only become verbs through affixation. So, if you could please help me edit root word entries, thanks! --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 04:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should rather create entries including the affixes. A new user have been adding a lot of these, and I once created verbs with suffixes, but I soon moved to create the root forms. --TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 04:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Long time no see. I've been editing again after a long break, but I find it's a nearly universal practice on most Austronesian languages to list verbs in dictionaries by their root, due to the complex nature of verb conjugations and the nuanced meaning of verb affixes. That said, it's stil vaild to create lemmas for verbs plus their affixes, especially where it carries a different meaning from its root. Also, some Spanish-era translating dictionaries (e.g. the Vocabulario de la lengua tagala) list verbs by their root, though they also list the meaning of the verb when affixes are added. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 08:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Also, there's the new tl-conj-table that lists all possible verb conjugations that further reinforces the need to list verb by the root instead, but, like I mentioned earlier, its still valid for an affixed conjugated form to be a lemma as well. A possible compromise for me is to list the affixes added to the verb root where used in a certain definition, just like in the Vocabulario. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 08:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Looking up what is being considered for Indonesian verbs here, I think we may follow this approach:


 * List the verb by its bare root if all its possible definitions can be carried by its affixed forms in the actor focus (active voice) or object focus (passive voice).
 * List the verb complete with affixes if it has a figurative meaning different from its root, especially those deriving from a noun stem or its affixes convey mood (see Appendix:Tagalog verbs).-TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 09:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, to be honest, I find different Philippine language dictionaries do it differently. Although if the verb is to be placed in the stem, there are some problems here I can elaborate on more in the future, but mainly is that the stem functions as an adjective and noun too, and technically all nouns and adjectives can function as verb stems. For example, "kutsara" can be "kutsarain" or "kumutsara". Secondly, not all verb stems can be applied with all the affixes we have. And some of those affixes in combination with those stems have specific meanings. I agree that this can be open for discussion but I agree with Vito Santos to say that all stems are either adjectives or nouns, but not verbs. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 09:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, I'll be testing my proposed solution on the entries I last added or edited, but I'll be open to create another solution if anyone asks. In addition, if you can find a monolingual Tagalog dictionary, big and small, and look carefully how they handle verbs, then we have an idea of what a Tagalog verb lemma is. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 09:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In the model you're proposing, that would mean that almost all Tagalog nouns and adjectives would have a verb entry, right? --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 10:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, including all nouns (even proper ones) and all adjectives not prefixed with ma-. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 10:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Another issue now is what form is considered lemma. Each actor-focus verb have a corresponding equivalent in another trigger that is used if the focus of the sentence is changed. Would think the primary lemma is actor-focus (those with infinitive containing these affixes: -um-, -mag-, -mang-, ma-, maka-); everything in another focus not having a figurative meaning should be seen as non-lemma. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 11:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * To prove your point about what is the verb lemma in the Philippine languages, I've observed in Blust's ACD that Bikol, Ilocano and Tagalog verbs are listed along with affixes, while Bikol, Cebuano, Hiligaynon, Kapampangan normally lists verbs by the root. Given that point, I agree now with your point the Tagalog verb lemma should the affixed form. I've changed some affixed forms to link into the stem yesterday, and I'll be undoing them.--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 20:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Verbs with a root word borrowed from English without change in spelling
Have been noticing the likes of, , and : should they be moved to a form with a hyphen between the prefix and the root. Those written with a hyphen are more commonly used. --TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 06:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Just looked up the 2014 Manwal, I found that these are correctly written with a hyphen. Have already fixed most of them except i-scan and mag-subscribe (still labelled incorrectly as "familiar" as against its definition in Appendix:Glossary and not moved to correct spelling). -TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 09:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * For me, I think these words should be tagged with a category for being English words that have been preserved in spelling, as in Taglish. Since their acceptance as actual Tagalog words can be debatable, but I see the validity of their inclusion in Wiktionary. But yeah, I don't mind the guidelines of KWF in this case. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 10:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Other languages did also borrow English terms related to the Internet and popular culture wholesale without making them conform to traditional spelling, so, for the likes of mag-share or mag-like, agree there shouldn 't be problems with listing them here.


 * Regarding KWF spelling rules, they are generally guidelines, not formal rules, though they still do have an influence on what is considered the standard spelling of a dictionary entry and the form used in books and media. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 10:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you make a category tag for these words? Just to have a convenient category for words that don't follow Tagalog orthography. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 08:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I think that's unnecessary, considering that "foreign" letters like C, F, J, Q, V, and Z are now part of the Filipino alphabet, so are borrowings with no change in spelling. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 10:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * We have a template for such cases: ubor. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 09:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Going back again on the "not really Spanish" argument on etymologies
Well, going back on the "not really borrowed from Spanish" argument like what happened with Cebuano talk:takilya, should we agree on these points regarding etymology of modern borrowings, not only of Tagalog, but also most other languages of the Philippines?
 * that there is a common mistake with some editors insisting what is really borrowed from Spanish is instead derived from English, especially where the word in question has a cognate in Spanish (and usually has a common Latin-language ancestor), so to argue that the likes of and  being derived from English liquid and cemetery than from Spanish  and  (though there have been cemeteries since colonial times).
 * that some would say a term for some concept or object is only considered borrowed from Spanish if it had existed in Spain (so one of the arguments against being a loan of, just because TV didn't exist in Spain until the 1950s, and with  from , just because box office is an American thing and hasn't existed in Spain until some point in time) or in colonial-era Philippines, that what is correctly considered borrowed words from Spanish aren't, but rather from English. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 09:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, it seems to me that only one person says that lol. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 09:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Do you mean Carl? Strongly agree. It's not necessary for some concept or object being expressed by a borrowing from Spanish on Tagalog or any major Philippine language to exist in Spain or colonial-era Philippines, or have a Castilian equivalent. I have a hunch Carl's arguments can just be due to oversimplification of history (Spanish didn't stop to exist in PH after 1898), mistranslation (as we have two common words for Spanish: Espanyol and Kastila, the former being broader and the other being more or less specific to Castilian Spanish), or a combination of both.--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 09:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Another thing is that some definitions of certain borrowed words are rather semantic borrowings from English. I think in the sense of "college" would be a case of semantic borrowing from English than another new borrowing from the English word itself by "Hispanicization", so the two etymologies for the Cebuano should be merged and the one marked as semantic loan. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, feel free to change that. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 08:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's really going to be hard, as Carl's back again, though I've already reminded him of his longstanding problems of "owning" Cebuano articles and his insistence on "not really Spanish" on his talk page. Also, I've placed another Cebuano entry's etymology for RFV,, but it has been a week ago. --TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 20:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just caught another Cebuano word claimed to be from English by Carl and fixed its etymology: eleksyon. No, there have been also elections -- not necessarily democratic and free -- for positions during the colonial era (such as those held to choose the gobernadorcillo), so that easily disproves the claim of borrowing from English by "Hispanicization". Again, the concept being present in Castilian/Spanish Spanish or in Spanish colonial times is not necessary to say a loanword in any Philippine language is borrowed from the Spanish language, and to add up, Spanish was an official language of the Philippines till 1987 (when it has been relegated to optional/auxiliary language). Would think Carl was not aware of the latter. --TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 07:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you the one making the pre-2014 edits? Maybe we should talk about that more. Also I checked out the "eleksyon" entry in Tagalog. Seems to be a wrong link. Please check. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 07:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I've noted those are still recognized as correct spellings (the reason for the recommendation for eleksiyon is for ease of hyphenation as well as trying to make words follow the "native" syllable structures as in the draft Ortograpiya). I'll fix the link on the template, but linking to the redirect is still fine. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 07:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Words with 3 or more consonants (and W or Y being one of them)
Agree we might follow most of KWF's recommendations mentioned in Appendix:Tagalog spellings, such as capitalization and reduplications, but what about cases of words with triple consonant clusters in the middle, such as aksyon, eleksyon, eskwela? TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 07:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Classical Tagalog
There isn't a Wikipedia entry for "Classical Tagalog", and I presume this is just another name for Old Tagalog. Should we consider merging them?--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 03:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Where? --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 05:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge Classical with Old Tagalog. That would also mean requesting the removal of the tl-cls code from Module:etymology languages/data, and that may necessitate a bot move.--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 05:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * My understanding of "Classical Tagalog" is basically like the one in the wiktionary entry definition for it here at Classical Tagalog, and also all the further reading literature listed there like Doctrina Christiana, Ibong Adarna, Florante at Laura, Noli Me Tangere, El Filibusterismo (all of these literature most of which are not the same as the Modern Tagalog(Filipino) we have today and the Old Tagalog found in some bits of the Laguna Copperplate Inscription or other Baybayin artifacts). My idea is that it's a sort of Middle Tagalog around the earliest time of entry of Early Modern Spanish(Colonial-era/Golden-age Spanish) upon first Spanish contact, first written in Latin script rather than Baybayin (as seen written in the Doctrina Christiana as the Latin script with the different archaic hispanic spellings from today's Modern Tagalog(Filipino), side-by-side the Tagalog in Baybayin text, and the Early Modern Spanish that birthed Philippine Spanish), post-Spanish contact during Spanish colonial era, before Philippine Revolution and American colonial era times in the 20th century when people started loaning English terms and the government absorbing all the common Philippine Spanish code-switched terms as officially part of the language spelled in the Filipino orthography, and standardizing, and officiating Modern Tagalog as "Filipino" that we know and taught today in Filipino classes at school. Both the wikipedia page for Old Tagalog and Tagalog language briefly mention it but doesn't explain much.
 * Then, I think Old Tagalog is basically the Tagalog language, pre-Spanish contact that wrote in Baybayin, that also liked to code-switch foreign ruling class prestige language terms and got all the precolonial Old Malay or sometimes Old Javanese borrowings where some terms were also originally initially borrowed from Sanskrit, Tamil, Arabic, Persian. And then, maybe some terms also were directly borrowed from very very old Middle Chinese loans which are hard to identify, determine the period of entry and the original chinese language that introduced it. Most of the easier to identify Chinese loanwords into Tagalog I presume entered during Spanish colonial times or 20th century alongside either Classical and/or Modern Tagalog(Filipino), because the classical and/or modern Tagalog term and also the Hokkien or Cantonese term haven't morphed or changed too much apart that we can still identify the original Hokkien or sometimes Cantonese terms they got it from here. The older more ancient Chinese loans tho that came in during precolonial Old Tagalog times, it's harder to find/identify them and pinpoint where exactly it came from if maybe either from Coastal Min Chinese or just Min Chinese(the direct ancestor of Hokkien Min Nan/Southern Min) or Yuehai Chinese or just Yue Chinese or generally Middle/Classical Chinese (the direct ancestor of Cantonese), since they probably have morphed into something strange already or the Chinese source language no longer uses the term it originally came from, so we wouldn't know exactly which or what that chinese term was.--Mlgc1998 (talk) 06:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, I think Classical Tagalog was discussed before here last year I think it was.--Mlgc1998 (talk) 06:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, for all intents and purposes, no reason to differentiate "Classical Tagalog" with "Modern Tagalog", just like we don't differentiate "Early Modern English" (Shakespearean English) with Modern English, or Dante's Italian with modern Italian. So no reason to use a "tl-cls" code. May I know where it is used? --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 06:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think Classical Tagalog just arose here when Tagalog is still named Filipino. --TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 06:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I meant where is tl-cls code currently used? I haven't seen it. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 06:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's used in a few entries categorized at Category:Tagalog terms derived from Classical Tagalog. --TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 06:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * So, which would it be merged into? Old Tagalog or Modern Tagalog. This is a complicated topic, that for the most part "Classical Tagalog" tag exists to fall back on when the complication in the etymology arises, but for the most part in most etymologies, "tl-cls" can also not need to be used, but when it is relevant, that's where it comes in. We have archaic terms spelled differently and more like in the hispanic way such as most of the words written in those books I listed and the subsequent English or Spanish terms borrowed them from Classical Tagalog and not from the Modern Tagalog we recognize today nor the Old Tagalog used in precolonial times.--Mlgc1998 (talk) 06:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I would better agree Classical Tagalog is just early modern Tagalog, and we should set the boundary between Old Tagalog and modern Tagalog around 1600, by the time the Doctrina christiana and the Vocabulario de la lengua tagala are published. The spelling differences aren't much significant (and most words can be easily transcribed to modern orthography), except for things like which now corresponds to . --TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 06:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The issue before was there was both a lot of old spellings you can see in all those old books even when you just look through Doctrina Christiana and when students today studied all the big 4 books studied during High school, as you know, there were so many archaic terms that are no longer used today or now looks so different when let's say you read the poetry of Ibong Adarna or Florante at Laura, then reading Rizal's two novels were significantly easier to understand, and also Classical Tagalog was the Tagalog that formed or contributed to all the other neighboring languages or other languages in the provinces like the Paranan and Kasiguranin language and the one that contributed to the Chavacano de Cavite (Caviteño) and Chavacano de Ternate (Ternateño), and also even the modern Davaoeño language. This was the Tagalog language of the Spanish colonial period that codeswitched alongside Philippine Spanish and Colonial-era Sangley Early Manila Hokkien(based more on either or both Quanzhou or Zhangzhou Hokkien), just as today we speak Modern Tagalog (Filipino) while codeswitching to Philippine English, that we now informally colloquially consider Taglish, but during that time, the Modern Tagalog (Filipino) we call today was what Taglish was to us now. In the same way in precolonial times, the people back then speaking Tagalog as Old Tagalog, with all the Old Malay terms and the second-hand terms it loaned, would not know or at least have a hard time with whatever it is they were now speaking and writing in Spanish colonial times, just as highschool students now struggle with reading those readings of Ibong Adarna and Florante at Laura.--Mlgc1998 (talk) 06:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make sense, as languages constantly borrow words to fill lexical gaps, and there's a distinction between borrowing and code-switching. But again, "classical" Tagalog is no different from modern Tagalog", so is modern English from Shakespearian English, or Italian from the language of Dante Alighieri. Even the translations of Bibles and Roman Catholic prayers continue to use what we now call "malalalalim na salita". It's getting tiresome I have to read all of Mlgc1998's long responses, which doesn't make sense.  --TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 07:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * They constantly borrow it and they do it precisely cuz of the historical period they're in that led them to do that. Yeah, the borrowed or loaned words are now officially part of the language, but before that, people have always been codeswitching here into their vocabulary for at least a thousand years ago, which is how the words later get borrowed into and made official after some decisions and such. Also hey lol haha, you brought it up and I have to explain how complicated it is, which is why it's there, since a lot of it is complicated and tiresome to discuss and as you know since that's a very subjective line to explain what is supposed to be no different from whichever form it was through time. I mean how can one say that Old Tagalog is different from Modern Tagalog, but this one isn't. And then, when you give all these whatever reasons why that's the case, then again, can these reasons also not apply to Classical Tagalog? ...or and then sana hindi my goodness, the Tagalog of which century or even decade lol... This topic of where that line is exactly is blurry and as you know, etymology is just history and it's hard to draw lines in history. And so, that's why that's there. People may or may not use these tags and just call them all Tagalog if you'd like, but wiktionary decided to add Old whatever language and that's the etymological classification rabbit hole we're in now lol. --Mlgc1998 (talk) 07:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, please stop using Classical Tagalog in etymologies. It doesn't make sense, because it's redundant to say that a word in the modern form of one language originates from a classical form of that language. That's why in Vulgar Latin entries, you don't see them with etymologies from Classical Latin (since they're the same language classification). Similar with modern Malay entries, not with etymologies to "Classical Malay". Feel free to edit. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 07:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Would you say as well, "it's redundant to say that a word in the modern form of one language originates from an old form of that language"? That's what this is. Why then is there a "Vulgar Latin", a "Late Latin", a "Medieval Latin", "Ecclesiastical Latin", "Renaissance Latin", "New Latin"? Why aren't they all just "Latin"? If you think this is redundant, no one's requiring anyone to use it. It's not used as much, that's why there's not a lot in that list but it's there when it's relevant. Also, pls if you guys don't appreciate me explaining all this. I don't relish having to write about all of this whatever it is from so long ago too, since I'm busy with other stuff too. --Mlgc1998 (talk) 08:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * However, one thing that's relevant in etymology is first attestation. So you can definitely do that. Not necessarily "first attested" also, but "attested" in this document from this date. You can look at Korean etymologies in Wiktionary, since they do that there a lot. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 07:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's more relevant with Latin, since those are generally established periods of Latin usage throughout the millennia, but with Tagalog, not really. "Classical Tagalog" isn't a thing, so far, as a separate stage for linguists. Also, with Latin, I think if you look at entries of Ecclesiastical Latin, Medieval Latin, and New Latin words, they don't have an etymology that originates it from "Classical Latin", since the distinction refers to the period when the word was in use. Though, to your credit, now that I think about it, sometimes there is a form in Classical Latin, but the pronunciation and spelling changes, in a big manner, such that the term "Classical Latin" is used in the etymology, but the etymologies I've seen where "Classical Tagalog" was placed, there was no shift in the form of the word. So, I would suggest changing it to "attested". --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 08:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Then, why are there papers I can find mentioning this when I google "Classical Tagalog" in Google Books? Also, it's not just Latin. This is also done for many other languages and it doesn't even need to be named as "Classical ...". These are all distinction to refer to the period when the word was in use that way. How big whatever it is that it changed to, can that "big manner" be succinctly defined over all the languages where they actually have researched each stage in those languages? These spelling changes and pronunciation differences, can you also definitively say after poring over all the Spanish colonial era books with Tagalog written in them where Classical Tagalog is supposed to encompass and interviewing all the elderly people who still somehow remember the Spanish colonial times how that's supposed to be correctly pronounced from their background? That's a lot of research that's not as big on being done, documented and researched on yet. When you somehow time travel from today to how many centuries from now or how many centuries before, can anyone say that the way they talk we can still say, yeah, that's the same Tagalog I grew to know. Will Francisco Balagtas or Lakan dula be teleported today to talk to some beki or conyo and even if they talk in the KWF approved Filipino that we consider today without their slangs, balagtas and lakan dula will say, yeah my man, he's talking the same language I lived and died with. They gonna go, Aba guinoo! Apir, pagpalain napopono manga lahat kayoung tambay jan.--Mlgc1998 (talk) 09:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Continuing on, what about corrupted Spanish borrowings like, , , , , , , , ? From the way they're spelled, I assume these ones could have come from Old Tagalog as their spellings reflected their Baybayin forms. What about words we now describe as "malalim" (such as what we find at Ibong Adarna, balagtasan, Bible translations, liturgy)? Archaic? Obsolete? -TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 08:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Please don't get angry. Yes, "Classical Tagalog" as a term exists, same as "Early Modern English", but we won't use it in etymologies, that's all, simply because it talks merely about a peak in the language's literary period, similar to Italian used in the Renaissance (which is identical to modern Italian today, except of course minus the archaic words and more slangy words and grammar usages). It's just not how etymologies are written. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 09:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not angry. I'm just being made to explain so much all the time someone pings me in whatever it is to the context of changing whatever it is that was done months or a year ago. Wiktionary and all these other wiki projects just make all these paragraphs into big blocks of text so they appear big and imposing. And as you know, it takes a lot of time and pain to deal with these big blocks of text reply chains that we don't even have to be doing. And yes, they exist, precisely cuz of that history, you can opt not to use it or deal with it. The suggested etymology formats in the About:Tagalog page are there to just be prescriptive so the most common ones are easy to copy-paste or teach others about how it usually works. When It's relevant to whoever finds it useful, that's when that tag comes in. If you don't wanna use it, that's up to anyone how they typically edit their entries in the best way possible they think they'll give it their time for. Just don't restrict other people by removing the capability for these to whoever may decide to use it for what context it fits in. Whoever that decided to pore through their time to research a word's etymological history and put all the various sources and attestations, that's a lot of work for them too for someone to just say, nah, that's not how we should be doing things here in this free dictionary, oh we don't need silly particularities. If whichever user came on here to improve entries in the best format they thought it was supposed to be in whichever particularity they decided to focus on, their work just needs to be cleaned and improved, not just removed cuz someone perceived that's not how their best perception of this free place is supposed to be. It's not like anyone's required to be here. We're all here cuz of our own compulsions. This happens not just on wiktionary or wikipedia, but I get people too from other apps I help with cuz people feel their contribution is set aside when I correct them and I mean they think I'm devaluing them just by correcting them cuz that's supposedly called being patronizing. Now, that's gonna happen all the time if people keep suggesting things that aren't constructive or cooperative or there to just tell people off. --Mlgc1998 (talk) 10:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's a policy here in Wiktionary, we don't remove edits if they can be edited to have value (for example, a new Wiktionary entry that has very poor formatting). But if the entry's verifiability is questioned, and can't be shown to be correct, that has to be deleted. I'm paraphrasing here, but that's somewhere in the rules. Anyway, I hope you're not discouraged by these pings haha I also get these pings regularly from different editors of different languages. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 13:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I completely agree "Classical Tagalog" is just a stage of the modern language, and even that time, we already have a lot of borrowings. Mlgc1998's TL;DR replies and claims of code-switching just because the language wasn't standardized yet so to make borrowings "official" is putting me off, and don't he need some lecturing at his talk? I don't have to waste time about what is borrowing and what is code-mixing. English have already borrowed a lot (as Old English/Anglo-Saxon and Middle English) even before Gutenberg have invented the printing press, the first English dictionaries is published and spelling is standardized, so why claim speakers or older forms of Tagalog code-switched when that concept wasn't invented yet? TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 22:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

English borrowings adapted to match others with a certain common morpheme
Any idea about treating some English borrowings that have been made to sound like Spanish through replacement of morphemes (maybe let's say -ation to -asyon, e.g. populasyon) as normal borrowings, with changes explained through standardization? It's much like how Indonesian or Malay (for newer borrowings) has been using -asi/-si for English -ation. That would partially relax the rule on what are pseudo-Hispanisms. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 07:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * @TagaSanPedroAko could it be called a Filipinization through, like "From Filipinized ." or "From with influence from 🇨🇬" or "... or 🇨🇬" Mlgc1998 (talk) 12:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * or "From a Filipinization of through 🇨🇬, which was from 🇨🇬." Mlgc1998 (talk) 12:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * In the case of Tagalog, the difference is vague because "-ation" is very similar to the Tagalog "-asyon" or the Spanish "-ación". One example of this is how English "demonstration" became Tagalog "demonstrasyon". With Indonesian though, afaik, this is state-sanctioned coinage and standardization. Meanwhile, in Tagalog, it's more natural, it's a result of increasing English fluency and the knowledge of how Latinate words borrowed from Spanish in Tagalog correspond to English words. In any case, I don't see anything wrong with what we're currently doing, unless you wanna point something out. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 12:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Just to add up to the Indonesian precedent, Malay as of late has been adapting English words with -ation to -asi, basically borrowing the Indonesian suffix and using it on all later English borrowings containing -ation. Previously, Malay adopted English borrowings with that ending by respelling to one approximately matching the original English (e.g. from,  from ). What Malay has been doing with the same set of words doesn't look state-sanctioned unlike with Indonesian (it's more or less an attempt to harmonize Malay with Indonesian in terms of vocab), but still something convincing to argue for not treating things like populasyon as pseudo-Hispanism. Yes, Spanish doesn't have *populación for "population" (but ), but how Tagalog came up with populasyon does seem to be a deliberate choice due to población being used already in the sense of "town center" (its main usage): coined by swapping the English -ation with -asyon to match the others with that ending, which are usually Spanish. For , it's sounds more of a deliberate change of stress position from the English, which already had a similar pronunciation to start with. For transportasyon, it does seem to be like with populasyon: morpheme swap of -ation to -asyon; KWF claims Spanish derivation but I have my doubts, as the etymon in question is quite little used (and seen as English influence) compared to the more common .-TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * More or less, what I can say is things like, and  are more or less English borrowings that have been altered upon borrowing to harmonize with Spanish-derived ones. These words themselves are in KWF Diksiyonaryo, which normally doesn't list anything that would be pseudo-Hispanic. Demonstrasyon may fall under the umbrella, but yes, let's say it's a pseudo-Hispanism because the Spanish is  (also borrowed as ). Perhaps some other pseudo-Hispanisms I find around KWF Diksiyonaryo are  and . TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The idea you're explaining right now is the same logic Carl Francis sticks to, except of course he takes it a step further. Let me give an example scenario. It seems like television sets were first brought by the Americans, so Filipinos at that time called it "telebisyón". Question, is that from English or from Spanish? In these cases of double influence, what matters is the form of the word and the intention. Obviously, the form is more Spanish than English (as seen in the stress and the vowel pronunciations). However, the thing is, the fluency of people in Spanish from the late 19th century to the early and mid 20th century was never really high. Yet, Spanish loanwords still manage to trickle down like and  where the intention to borrow from Spanish is more obvious. With these words, no one can argue an "attempt to harmonize" because there's no standard way to convert the English word to that. So, if we agree that those words are definitely Spanish, but these words seem to have been borrowed in the 20th century (let's add ), which would intuitively come from those aware of how Spanish would say it, even though it wasn't spoken by most of the population, they still adapted it to Tagalog. This method of borrowing carried on until after WWII, as Spanish speakers dwindled, such that words like "demonstrasyon" were born. We could guess as to the intention of the person that borrowed it, they could have attempted to make it "look and sound Spanish" to make it "look and sound Tagalog" (since that has become a bit synonymous), or one could remove the first step and just guess that maybe the person just tried to make it "look and sound Tagalog". So which one is right? We can't say. It's hard to say. We don't have writings of the people that borrowed these words telling us what was their intention. So back to your question, is a word like "polusyon" borrowed from Spanish or standardized to Tagalog from English? We can only guess. Because we can't predict the purpose of the person that borrowed it. It's possible, what you're trying to say, but it creates more categories than our current system. The current system is easily split (Spanish borrowing and pseudo-Hispanisms). The system you're seem to proposing has more categories and is vaguer (Spanish borrowing, standardized from English to make it sound Spanish, then pseudo-Hispanisms would be like the second category but they made a mistake). And the second category, it's gonna be purely guesswork. Or trying to see patterns into words, when the words were actually legit borrowed from Spanish in the late Spanish period. It makes everything more complicated without any solid evidence that that was the intention of the borrower. And we'd have to do so much research as to when the word was borrowed (since it's legit Spanish borrowing if it's from the late Spanish period, and doubt begins to appear if it's  in the 20th century. So I suggest we keep the status quo. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 11:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * For words like, it's similar to and , where the Spanish word technically exists, but the existence of those words in Spanish (whether obsolete, wrong part of speech, or too dialectal) have circumstances which prevents it from being a real Spanish borrowing. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 12:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * +1. We can keep the existing system, but better explain in the etymology how the word came to be. e.g. came from  by swapping the -ation with -asyon. Also, another problem is with handling of most cases of pseudo-Hispanism. Compared to entries of similar things (e.g. pseudo-Anglicisms in other languages, like German  or "smoking" with the meaning tuxedo in various language), we explicitly mention that the word is such in the etymology.
 * In regard to the similar case in Indonesian words with -asi but are actually adapted English, it's clear it's sanctioned by its language regulator. For Malay, it remains unanswered, but it does like a recent move to harmonize with Indonesian of some nature. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, in the context of being a pseudo-Hispanism, yeah that process can be explained. The reason why the Philippine situation is different is because we have double influence (Spanish and English), while I think other languages, it's just one, like for the German, the idea is that it's from English, but that word, while English-derived, does not exist in English. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 10:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * There's also this template I just found recently, pseudo-loan, that we can use. Perhaps retire and delete the old "siyokoy" templates I created?
 * Going off-topic, reading again the thread on talk:takilya, especially the quote from WP good ole Carl used to justify English origin for the word in question, I’m disappointed by what comes to me as ignorance and misunderstanding that are feeding the etymology disputes. Also another driving factor to me is Spanish being called "Kastila", so those arguments Spanish loanwords should refer to something that already existed in the colonial era or Spain. How is "eroplano", "bentilador" etc. being simply created out of "airplane", "ventilator", etc.? Answer, it's out of ignorance of Spanish and its history in the Philippines, and a misunderstanding of one old, established rule to fit a narrow historical view. Thoughts? TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 13:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Since Almario stepped down as KWF chair, and the current orthography in effect is basically the 2013 Ortograpiyang Pambansa, maybe we should rethink about this. My thoughts of when to consider something a pseudo-hispanism is when it was considered so and/or does not exist in the monolingual standard language dictionaries (namely KWF Diksiyonaryo and UPDF). TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 09:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Baybayin
@Mar vin kaiser Can you add some Baybayin rules here too? like how we talked about the alternate forms will be having the alternate Baybayin spelling such as gabi and gab-i?

Appendix:Baybayin script also needs some content. Ysrael214 (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Affixes
The changes you made here to affixation, is that a pan-website change? Mar vin kaiser (talk) 13:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Which changes did I make? Was it changing prefix, suffix etc. to affix? If so, I only made those for specific requested languages. Benwing2 (talk) 16:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I see. Where was it requested? --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 01:10, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure any more. It would probably have been requested in the Grease Pit, maybe by User:Ysrael214, but I can't find a reference to this specifically. Can you point me to a sample change? Benwing2 (talk) 01:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Benwing2 @Mar vin kaiser I'm not requesting anything affix related. Ysrael214 (talk) 01:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Benwing2 @Mar vin kaiser Is it this one? Grease_pit/2023/July Ysrael214 (talk) 01:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not a request for bot work but a request I made for comments about a feature I then implemented. Benwing2 (talk) 01:40, 2 August 2023 (UTC)