Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Filipino

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Filipino Wikipedia[edit]

main page Requests for new languages (Wikipedia Filipino)
submitted verification final decision
This proposal has been closed as part of a reform of the request process.
This request has not necessarily been rejected, and new requests are welcome. This decision was taken by the language committee in accordance with the Language proposal policy.

The closing committee member provided the following comment:

This discussion was created before the implementation of the Language proposal policy, and it is incompatible with the policy. Please open a new proposal in the format this page has been converted to (see the instructions). Do not copy discussion wholesale, although you are free to link to it or summarise it (feel free to copy your own comments over). —{admin} Pathoschild 23:03:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Proposal summary
Please read the handbook for requesters for help using this template correctly.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
  • I'm all behind this; would it help if I went to Filipino posting boards to promote? -- user:zanimum
    • Zanimum, we already have a flourishing Tagalog Wikipedia. There is almost no difference between filipino and Tagalog, in fact Filipino is just the official standardised variety of Tagalog and is already used in the Tagalog Wikipedia.
    • Should this entry be withdrawn then? A-giâu 11:49, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Although Filipino is a variant of Tagalog it has its own orthography. Tagalog is purist unlike Filipino which is free to use foreign and other native words.
    • Comment The Filipino and Tagalog orthographies are one. The addition of a few letters to the Filipino alphabet affects the alphabets of Cebuano, Ilocano, and all other Philippine languages as well since it is a NATIONAL alphabet. And who ever said Tagalog is doomed to be limited to a small, native vocabulary? That didn't stop English from borrowing tons of French words and STILL remaining English, did it? Does Spanish now cease to be Spanish just because a huge part of its vocabulary is Arabic? What about Japanese and Italian, with their ridiculous influx of English words and expressions? Are they now to be called different names?
Response - Tagalog has 20 letters (with 21 phonemes) while Filipino has 28 (with 25 phonemes). Pilipino had 31 letters. Modern English has 26. Bikol has... I don't know. --Filipinayzd 13 September 2007
Response-Mere changes in the alphabet do not make a standard variety of one language into a new separate language. In fact, the so-called different number of letters in "Tagalog", "Pilipino" and "Filipino" are simply different lists of letters of the same script in the same language. In the first place, prior to the 20th century, Tagalog was spelled differently and it used more letters than the so-called "20 letter Tagalog alphabet". The 20-letter Tagalog version of the Roman alphabet is a simplified version agreed upon by the Tagalog specialists in the late 19th century to early 20th century. The addition of "c", "f" and so on are more accurately described as restoration rather than addition. By way of analogy, Spanish at one time considered the digraphs "ch", "ll", and "rr" as separate letters in the Spanish alphabet--now these are no longer separate letters. But the new Spanish alphabet did not create a new separate language.--Harvzsf 03:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you believe that Baybayin and Tagalog are different languages? --Filipinayzd 14 September 2007
No I do not believe that Baybayin and Tagalog are different languages (one is a script while the other is a language). Do you believe that Baybayin and Tagalog are different languages? --Harvzsf 00:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The two are different. Baybayin is syllabic while Tagalog is not. Baybayin uses characters while Tagalog uses letters. Each has its own speakers. Baybayin has 3 vowels and 14 consonants while Tagalog has 5 and 15, respectively. --Filipinayzd 19 September 2007
What you are saying is just an opinion. Regarding the new Spanish alphabet, it is a different issue. For Spanish, it was restoration since it was the same Spanish language. Tagalog and Filipino have had restorations too. --Filipinayzd 19 September 2007
Response - This is a not a request for renaming and/or changing the existing Tagalog Wikipedia in to Filipino Wikipedia. --Filipinayzd 13 September 2007
Response-But this is a request to create a "Filipino Wikipedia" and as stated previously, "Filipino" and "Tagalog" are the same language. --Harvzsf 03:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Filipino and Tagalog are the same language, Filipino being just a standard variety of the Tagalog language. Why have two wikipedias for one language? Filipino had 31 letters in 1976 and as of 1987, 28. --Harvzsf 06:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Response - Why is there Simple English Wikipedia? --Filipinayzd 13 September 2007
Response- Why not ask those who created the Simple English Wikipedia? There are no separate wikipedias for American English and British English, nor separate wikipedias for Mexican Spanish and European Spanish, and proposals for separate Brazilian and European Portuguese wikipedias were rejected. --Harvzsf 03:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support With respect to being the national language of the Philippines, Filipino even though being essentially Tagalog in grammar and conjugation and mostly of its vocabulary, is aimed at being developed into a standardized and unifying language of the Filipinos. Filipino has slowly (though not significantly) shown its distinction from Tagalog, which officially has all of the English alphabets plus the Spanish Ñ and the Tagalog NG. It has also assimilated into its vocabulary certain words from other Philippine languages that have direct counterparts in Tagalog. — scorpion prinz 06:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment The reasons above are insufficient to make "Filipino" a distinct language from "Tagalog". In the first place, with respect to vocabulary, Tagalog has been borrowing words from non-Tagalog languages like Kapampangan, Hokkien Chinese, Malay and others long before it was declared the national language or "the basis of the national language". In the second place, with respect to the orthography, all the so-called new letters in "Filipino" like "c" and "ñ" were actually used in Tagalog before the 20th century. The so-called 20-letter Tagalog alphabet was actually only implemented during the early part of the 20th century by Lope K. Santos and Santos himself, appears to have gotten the idea from earlier Tagalog specialists who suggested the elimination of letters in the Roman alphabet to make Tagalog spelling more simplified. This idea was expressed as early as April 15, 1890 in the article "Sobre La Nueva Ortografía de la lengua tagala" (On the New Orthography of the Tagalog Language) written by José Rizal in the periodical La Solidaridad. The so-called new letters in Filipino are more of a "restoration" rather than an "adoption of new letters" since these were used in Tagalog prior to 1890. So no, word borrowings from other languages and changes in orthography does not make "Filipino" a different language from "Tagalog".--Harvzsf 05:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Response - Filipino is a budding language, rooted from Tagalog, it's tendency to incorporate or infuse words from other Philippine languages that have direct Tagalog counterparts will (IMHO) make it distinguishable eventually. — scorpion prinz 06:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Response - Filipino language is being developed. At present, Filipino and Tagalog are indistinguishable. It has not evolved into a language that uses words from Filipino languages (Bikol, Cebuano etc.) Blame it to Commission on Filipino Language. Hehehe. --Filipinayzd 13 September 2007
Response - Filipino is NOT distinct from Tagalog. The mere expectation that it will become distinct does not automatically make it a certainty. --Harvzsf 03:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - This is a nonsense proposal. The creation of a "Filipino" Wikipedia would have been valid if the Tagalog wikipedia did not exist in the first place. However Tagalog wikipedia does exist and hence this proposal is invalid because it is NOT a new language. --Jose77 03:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Response - Filipino is a language based on Tagalog. How come there is an Esperanto Wikipedia? --Filipinayzd 13 September 2007
Response-Esperanto is not an undefined project and when its creator Zamenhoff proposed it, he already had the grammar, vocabulary and other elements well-defined, and the language was already in a separate and complete form. In contrast, Filipino is just a state-sponsored variety of Tagalog. --Harvzsf 03:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - Having Wikipedia (and possibly Wikinews) in Filipino is a great proposal, a step forward in promoting Tagalog as a language that many people understand, especially that I am a native speaker of Tagalog from Manila. Filipinos must be proud of their heritage; we have built our own culture and language, and we are continuing to spread our culture and language throughout the world. May the Filipino spirit continue to shine and let Wikipedia approve a Filipino version of it. --Wishfulanthony 22:03PM (US Pacific Time), 12th September 2007.
Response - At present, Filipino and Tagalog are indistinguishable. Filipino should be an amalgation of all Filipino languages (Bikol, Cebuano etc.) Currently, it is not. Commision of Filipino Language is tasked to develop the national language. Filipino, formerly known as Pilipino, has been the national language of the Philippines since 1957. --Filipinayzd 13 September 2007
Requesting a Filipino Wikipedia when the Tagalog version already exists is as ridiculous as requesting for a Castillian Wikipedia when the Spanish version is already in existence. --Jose77 07:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment--I agree. There is already a Tagalog Wikipedia and Filipino is indistinguishable from Tagalog. The arguments put forth supposedly proving the difference between Tagalog and Filipino have been shown to be insufficient. --Harvzsf 03:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tagalog and Filipino are indistinguishable because the commission tasked to develop the national language has not come up with gramatical rules etc. which will eventually distinguish the two. (Like, Bicolano vocabulary will be used for astrological things: bulan for moon, bulanon for fullmoon, bituon for star etc. Tagalog's buwan will be used for month, bituin for star/celebrity etc.) Filipino Wikipedians can also use Filipino Wikipedia as forum to discuss how to develop Filipino. --Filipinayzd 14 September 2007
And the reason why the commission has not and will not come up with a satisfactory set of rules distinguishing the two is because Filipino and Tagalog are different names for the same language. --Harvzsf 00:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you have a source stating that "commission has not and will not come up with a satisfactory set of rules distinguishing the two is because Filipino and Tagalog are different names for the same language"? --Filipinayzd 19 September 2007
See the definition of the Filipino language below, which is a direct translation of the original in Filipino. Pursuant to that, there will be no new rules that would not apply as well to Tagalog. --Pare Mo 16:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - A Tagalog Wikipedia already exists. --Pare Mo 08:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - The Commission does not need to come up with rules of grammar and the like, given the definition itself of the Filipino language: "It is the indigenous written and spoken language of Metro Manila and other urban centers in the Philippines used as the language of communication of ethnic groups (Wikipedia)." In other words, it is an organic language, already existing. The Commission's only tasks are to "develop, promote, and preserve (CFL)" this already existing language. This language is Tagalog--as spoken within the Katagalugan and Metro Manila and without--and a Wikipedia in it already exists as well. I suggest that we just merge all the content in the incubating Filipino Wikipedia into the Tagalog Wikipedia instead of duplicating our efforts. --Pare Mo 08:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - Tagalog and Filipino have different speakers. Speakers of Filipino (irregardless of ethnicity) are from Metro Manila (mostly of Tagalog etnicity living in Metro Manila) and urban centers (e.g. Baguio, Cebu, Davao etc.) of the country (mostly of Igorot and Bisaya etnicity, respectively, etc.) Tagalog is also spoken in those areas by native Tagalogs (mostly from Katagalugan). --Filipinayzd 19 September 2007
    • Response - Catalans call their language Catalan, Valencians call it Valencian. Yet they share the same Wikipedia. Besides, even in Metro Cebu, they call the national language "Tagalog". --Pare Mo 16:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cebuanos call the national language "Tagalog" for political reason. As for Erap loyalists, Estrada is their president. Gloria Macapacal-Arroyo was declared and recognized by the Senate, House of Representatives, Supreme Court and international communities as the president of this republic (even if I did not vote for and did not want her to be the president). --Filipinayzd 20 September 2007
  • Oppose - I personally believe that Filipino and Tagalog are the same. This is my opinion as a speaker of Bikol and as a Bikolano. --Filipinayzd 20 September 2007
  • Comment - Filipino are a group of Austronesian languages and Tagalog is the main standard of Filipino.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Subsequent comments[edit]

  • I disagree.. slightly. since in Tagalog Wikipedia have some article contain a Filipino sentences. Filipino and Tagalog Wikipedia has the same only. Much better if dont publish this. ShiminUfesoj (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]