The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Filipino language. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Filipino language at the Reference desk. |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
This article is written in Philippine English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, realize, center, travelled) and some terms that are used in it (including jeepney and cyberlibel) may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sec. 6, Article XIV of the 1987 Philippine Constitution declares; "The national language of the Philippines is FILIPINO xxx" [capitalization supplied]. Comparatively, Sec. 3(2) of the 1973 Constitution provides; "The Batasang Pambansa shall take steps towards the development and formal adoption of a common national language to be known as Filipino."
Note that the 1973 provision written in the future tense (shall take steps towards development and formal adoption of a common national language). Prior the the promulgation of the 1973 Constitution, the prevailing national language was Pilipino pursuant the efforts of then Sanggunian ng Wika'ng Pambansa created under the 1935 Constitution. At the time it was superceded by the 1973 Constitution, Pilipino as language remain to exist. In fact, Sec. 3(3) (1973 Constitution) provides "Until otherwise provided by law, English and Pilipino shall be the official languages. However, the author of the Constitution saw the need to introduce a shift relative the official common national language from Pilipino to Filipino hence the provision mandating Batasang Pambansa to take steps towards DEVELOPMENT and FORMAL ADOPTION of Filipino as a language.
The very words develop and formal adoption literally implies that at the time the 1973 Constitution was promulgated, FILIPINO as a language was yet to be developed, let alone, be formally adopted as an official language. Said otherwise, FILIPINO at the time was yet to be constituted hence, a language that was yet to exist.
That being the mandate of the 1973 Constitution, the National Legislature during the Marcos regime, for whatever reason, failed to pass any legislation that would materialize the aforecited provision. Until the enactment of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
When the 1987 Philippine Constitution provided (Sec. 3(2), Art. XIV) that The National Language of the Philippines is Filipino, the framers of the Constitution failed to consider one basic and fundamental matter-of-fact. That is, no language constituted as Filipino exists at the time. Elsewise stated, the Filipino language pertained in the Constitution was still a non-existent language at the time the 1987 Philippine Constitution was enacted.
To prove the foregoing claim, a news article by GMA-News on 25 August 2010 provided the following:
UP Diksiyonaryong Filipino as our OED This rather long story about the development of the Filipino language is the backdrop of the UP Diksiyonaryong Filipino, which was first published in 2001. The general editor of the dictionary, which is co-published by UP Diliman’s Sentro ng Wikang Filipino and Anvil Publishing, is National Artist for Literature and former dean of UP Diliman’s College of Arts and Letters Dr. Virgilio Almario, also known as the poet Rio Alma. The second edition of UP Diksiyonaryong Filipino was launched during the Sawikaan 2010 at the University of the Philippines-Diliman last July 29. In his introduction to the reference book during the launching program, leading Filipino literary critic Isagani R. Cruz said: “This dictionary, whether we like it or not, is the only dictionary in Filipino." He always tells his students to consult the UP Diksiyonaryong Filipino if they have any doubts about the spelling of a particular word.
Note the claim that the ONLY DICTIONARY in Filipino was only published officially in the year 2001. That would be some fourteen years after the enactment of the very constitution declaring Filipino its National Language. This argument rests on the premise that no language may exist absent an official dictionary upon which its fundamental vocabularies are constructed. In the same manner, an official language, in order to officially exist, need to be founded upon well established rule of grammar. Under this premise, let us consider one matter-of-fact; the MAKABAGO'NG ALPHABETO of the Filipino Language was only introduced in the year 1989 of some two years after the ratification of the 1987 Constitution declaring its national language to be Filipino.
Given these two basic facts alone (That the first and only Filipino Dictionary published only in 2001 and the Filipino alphabet introduced only in 1989) suffice to show that FILIPINO as a language was a non-existent language at the time the 1987 Philippine Constitution was enacted.
Sec. 8, Article XIV, 1987 Philippine Constitution provides; "This Constitution shall be promulgated in Filipino and English and shall be translated into major regional languages, Arabic, and Spanish." If all the world don't mind, this proponent at least do, that to this day, no official FILIPINO translation of the 1987 Constitution exists. As per public pronouncements by the Commission on the National Language, the translation is still underway meaning it is still being pondered upon. This brings us to the legal controversy of the CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION.
If the very letters of the Constitution mandates it shall be promulgated in both English and Filipino, the absent of any working translation in the Filipino language is more than sufficient evidence the 1987 Philippine Constitution has not been accordingly promulgated as it has so mandated. I don't how the SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES will resolve the issue herein presented. Thus in paraphrasing; Is a constitution not accordingly promulgated pursuant its very own mandate considered to be validly enacted or constitutional for that matter?
This was probably realized by latter publishers of the text of the 1987 Constitution that the Title Heading of Article XIV of the 1987 Constitution Limited to Education, Science and Technology, Arts, Culture, and Sports. Obviously, the subheading title LANGUAGE is missing. Whether deliberate or otherwise, consider that under Article XIV; Secs. 1 to 5 are provisions about, hence subtitled EDUCATION. Secs. 10 to 13, Science and Technology. Secs. 14 to 18, Arts and Culture. Secs. 19, Sports.
Note that Secs. 6 to 9 which are provisions about Language despite so subtitled seem intriguingly absent and excluded in the Article Heading Title of Article XIV. Again, the heading title of the said Article; Education, Science and Technology, Arts, Culture, and Sports. AND WHAT ABOUT LANGUAGE? Obviously, there is something out-of-the-ordinary given the incomplete subheading representation in the main title of the pertained Title. A Constitution is a very important written manifesto. Given that significance of the document, I can only surmise the framers have hired the best and the most competent editors and proofreaders relative its printing and publication. Such a seemingly nuisance as may be considered a simple (but nonetheless outrageous) erratum simply seem incomprehensible.
As equally incomprehensible as if hitting a strike not one but twice is the language provision on the 1987 (prevailing) Administrative Code of the Philippines. Section 17 of Executive Order 297 dated 25 July 1987 instituting the Administrative Code of 1987 provides:
Official Languages. - Until otherwise provided by law, Pilipino and English shall be the official languages.
Given the prevailing provision of SECTION 7, Article XIV of the 1987 prevailing Constitution providing that; "For purposes of communication and instruction, the official languages of the Philippines are Filipino and, until otherwise provided by law, English," the above quoted language provision of the Administrative Code is palpably in contradiction hence, unconstitutional.
To my mind, the contradiction thus unconstitutionality may have been a deliberate scheme as to cloak some sense of legitimacy Administrative Acts performed by the executive recognizing its powers provided by and under the virtue of a Constitution that is Unconstitutional. By electing PILIPINO and ENGLISH rather than FILIPINO and ENGLISH as its official languages, the 1987 Administrative Code seem to ditch its last recourse admitting the legal question on the official existence of the Filipino language on the time of the enactment of the 1987 Constitution (which, anyway is questioned Unconstitutional) that its Administrative Acts should remain valid because it circumvented the language mandate expressed by the Constitution.
Thus the legal question raised by this proponent; is the promulgation of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, constitutional; AND, is the institution of the Philippine National Language that is Filipino, valid and legitimate?
Provided otherwise; is the REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES a duly constituted Republic? AND Is the Filipino Language validly and legitimately instituted official LANGUAGE?
A REVIEW BY:
FERDINAND A. OREAS
Language Proponent
19 January 19
(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:
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)
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)
Please take careful notice of the Twenty-Pesos bill of the NGC Philippine currency. Printed therein is the phrase FILINO AS THE NATIONAL LANGUAGE 1935. Read again the main article and find out the 1935 Saliga'ng batas made no mention of any particular language for its National Language. Ask any Philippine History student and they will tell you there's an embarrassing errata in our P20 peso bill. And a simple errata as may seem but would qualify a Conspiracy Theory to a fiction writer.
-- F.A.OREAS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.200.21.37 ( talk) 04:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I undid an rv by User:Kwamikagami to restore it to the version I last edited. No proper rationale was given for his action besides "can't speak for native speakers," which doesn't really make much sense. The edits added prior to the RV were not vandalism and were properly cited. They merit discussion before being reverted. 舎利弗 ( talk) 19:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
This discussion, headed Road to FA and with a subhead of Undid Kwami's RV seems to have gone off the rails. Please, guys, re-read WP:TPG. Let me requote the lead paragraph there here:
The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject.
I am tempted to close this discussion, but there have probably been points made which might be useful in improving this one particular WP article (which is what discussions on this talk page are supposed to be about). could participants please refocus on discussions about improvements to this particular WP article.
Also, I remark on the existence of the Languages of the Philippines article in addition to the Philippine languages article mentioned above (those two might be candidates for merger) and I will opine that I oppose merging this article into the Tagalog language article (and deleting it or turning it into a redirect to that article) for reasons about which I will not elaborate here and now. It seems to me, though, that the consensus here is against the proposed merger. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
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:
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: "Filipino and Tagalog are in no way the same."
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:
I state my focal argument saying that being a "legislated language" (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 (called ang "Bagong Alphabeto") 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:
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:
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)
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)
One of my first edits to this article is that I put in the infobox the Filipino language as the language of the Filipino people. User:Kwamikagami opposed this on grounds that not all Filipinos spoke Filipino (since it's just Tagalog after all). But I have here a source ( page 12) which says:
I'll post the primary source here when I see it. Yes, I am aware that the source is almost three decades old. But the fact couldn't be more evident. I'm finding newer sources now. I think this is enough proof to say that Filipino language is the language of the Filipino ethnic group. I'm opening this issue here to know if other users have any reservations about this statement. 舎利弗 ( talk) 16:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
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:
On November 13, 1937, the First National Assembly created the National Language Institute, which selected Tagalog for the basis of a new national language. In 1961, this language became known as Pilipino which was later renamed as Filipino.
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:
In 14 July 1936, the Surián ng Wikáng Pambansâ (National Language Institute) selected Tagalog as the basis of the Wikáng Pambansâ (National Language) based on the following factors: [...]
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 {{ cn}} tag had appeared.
I noticed that the relevant content now has no {{ cn}} tag. I've added a couple of {{ cn span}} 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)
(added) I just noticed that Andrew Gonsalez (1999). "The Language Planning Situation in the Philippines". In Robert B. Kaplan; Richard B. Baldauf (eds.).
Language Planning in Malawi, Mozambique and the Philippines. Multilingual Matters. p.
159.
ISBN
978-1-85359-444-1. {{
cite book}}
: External link in
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
|chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help) mentions that Tagalog was "officially proclaimed" in 1939. Being officially proclaimed, tthough, isn't necessarily the same thing as being selected by the National Language Institute, and this is complicated by
EO134 s. 1937 (currently cited in the article), wherein on December 13, 1937, President Quezon said that he did thereby, "approve the adoption of the Tagalog as the basis of the national language of the Philippines, and hereby declare and proclaim the national language so based on the Tagalog dialect, as the national language of the Philippines." (which doesn't quite say that he proclaims Tagalog as the national language). EO134 mentions that the National language institute had adopted a resolution on on November 9, 1937 saying that it "selects the Tagalog language to be used as the basis for the evolution and adoption of the national language of the Philippines" and that it recommended "the adoption of Tagalog as the basis of the national language of the Philippines". I haven't complicated things by adding content to the article about any of this.
Wtmitchell
(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
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)
What the discussion here never mentioned was why the Tagalog was the largest speaking dialect in the Philippines? Because it was forcibly required on all schools, you cannot graduate from a Philippine school if you do not finish Tagalog. The native dialect was also banned in schools by the tagalogs.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
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)
"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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help) Hope that helps.
Wtmitchell
(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)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)
mahal ko pamilya ko 4633 46339 112.204.174.55 ( talk) 09:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)