Jump to content

Talk:Bisayan languages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vacalary 10 difficult word meaning English and sentence is bisaya

Untitled

[edit]

Hi. I lived on and travled around Panay. One of my close friends is born and raised in Capiz, and she says they all speak Illongo (Hiligaynon). When I visited, that's what everyone I saw was speaking. There were a few unique words, on the scale of the difference between English in California and English in Alabama. Does anyone know or know of people who speak the Capiznon language? Because I never heard of it before this article. Is it more in rural areas? I could just not be aware of it, but it is definitely not the main language of the province. Officially, Capiz, Iloilo, Guimaras, and Negros Occidental (where Bacolod is) were all considered to be Illongo-speaking provinces.

Capiznon is spoken in more rural parts of Capiz itself. Let the name 'Capiznon' not fool you into thinking that it is the main tongue of Capiz province, because it's not. Ilonggo is. If you would refer to a linguistic map, Ilonggo speaking areas would take up most of Capiz including the coastal areas, Roxas City, leaving rural inland areas to the south and southwest of the province as Capiznon speaking areas. Si lapu lapu (talk) 13:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)si lapu lapu[reply]

Also, Hiligaynon and Kinaray-a are very closely related. I'd be surprised if they weren't in the same sub-family. There is much more mutual comprehension between Kinaray-a speakers and Hiligaynon speakers, than between speakers of Hiligaynon and Cebuano. A lot of the differences took a recognisable pattern, where an L in Hiligaynon would be an R in Kinary-a. For instance, 'talong' (eggplant) became 'tarong. Similarly, 'ligos' for bath, would be 'rigos'.

There's also some very obvious structural similarities between Hiligaynon and Aklanon, although the people I knew who were raised speaking English or Hiligaynon found some of the sounds very difficult to pronounce. There was a sort of swallowed 'y' sound that only natives of Aklan ever seemed capable of getting correct. It also seemed to be a substitue for L. For instance, in Aklan, the language was called Akyanon instead of Aklanon, and the word for house (Tagalog 'bahay' or Hiligaynon 'balay') became 'bayay'

This is all personal observation and fairly amateur lingustics, so if anyone knows better, please correct me. 68.234.12.90 05:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please include Bacolod.Thanks.--Jondel 04:12, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Under Cebuano? I didn't include any city references, but perhaps the Bacolod reference is more appropriate under the Cebuano article. --Chris 10:05, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Hi. I don't know the the linguistic categories but I do love languages and I 'm from Capiz but travelled to Iloilo, Bacolod, Aklan and some Luzon provinces. I understand Illonggo but don't speak it well(grew up in Manila but have relatives and travelled a lot to Roxas City). But fellow Illonggo speakers can tell I'm from an Illonggo province because the accent sometimes comes out when I speak Tagalog. With differences in accents and choice of words, Ilonggo is spoken and mutually understood in Capiz, Romblon, Bacolod and parts of Aklan. If there is a Capiznon, Romblon and the language of Bacolod should be considered as variants or versions of Illonggo. From experience I believe people from Bacolod don't speak Cebuano but Illonggo. Anyone from Bacolod who would like to comment? --Jondel 06:25, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Bacolod people speak Ilonggo (more formally known as Hiligaynon, though curiously a lot of the Ilonggo speakers I know are not aware that Hiligaynon is the same thing). TheCoffee 18:06, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

j sound

[edit]

Copied from the Hinduism in the Philippines discussion page:

Just a question for the Visayan language speakers or perhaps other: does the phoneme /j/ occur in this language? Meursault2004 10:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, V Speakers can pronounce the j but this was not a pre-Spanish sound nor can it be found in pure native non-hispanic, non-English words. It is similar to the Di sound, 'Dios ko '(My God), etc.--Jondel 07:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks. So Visaya could be a native pronunciation of Wijaya/Vijaya. Meursault2004 08:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Many 'j' sounds became s in various Philippine languages during the early Spanish period. 'javon' became sabon and Reloj => Relos . Spanish of course today pronounces the j as an h (Jesus=> Hesus). But in the early period it was similar to the j of French and Portugese like a zsh sound. In the Philippines, this sound evolved into the s sound. Some Filipinos have names like Sese(Jese), Sesus (Jesus). --Jondel 08:41, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You can encounter the /j/ sound in some Visayan dialects. The /j/ sound is a distinguishing feature of the Boholano dialect (usually considered a dialect of the Cebuano language) of central Bohol. In Boholano, /j/ is often used to replace the /y/ sound. --Wng 08:17, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
These Boholano words are not Spanish-based like Dios => Jos (God), Diario=> Jaryo(newspaper), etc?--Jondel 08:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is limited to central and eastern Bohol. Iya (his, her) becomes Ija. Babaye (woman) becomes babaje. The k also becomes h. Akò (mine)(is ò the correct symbol for the glottal stop?) becomes ahò. --Nino Gonzales 04:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The "correct" symbol for a glottal stop is ʔ - so 'akoʔ, but that's IPA. But writing it as an accent depends on the stress. And you got it right. As for the "aho" - are you talking about a regular "h" or a German "ch" ? In Tagalog, a similar thing happens with "ako" or "k" between vowels. --Chris S. 04:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The /j/ based words is not only limited to Bohol province. In the province of Romblon, particularly in the municipality of San Fernando in Sibuyan Island, most words pronounced as /y/ in Romblomanon becomes /j/ in San Fernando & Azagra areas. Ayam (Dog) is Ajam in Sibuyan; while Ayagak (Wailing) is Ajagak in Sibuyan and many more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.101.224.240 (talk) 08:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kinamiguin

[edit]

I recently created a page for Kinamiguin. I would like to add it to this page but want to give everyone a chance to comment before making any changes. Please also look at the Talk:Kinamiguin page. Gavin 08:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Visayan and Mansakan

[edit]

It looks like Mansakan and the former Southern Visayan group are now synonymous,without Surigaonon?Kasumi-genx (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Old grammars and dictionaries of Visayan

[edit]

http://books.google.com/books?id=b6ITAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Free Picture of the Lord's Prayer in Baybayin Visayan (Bisaya)

[edit]

the image is public domain and can be uploaded

http://books.google.com/books?id=uUhiAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA361#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 06:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Visayan language materials

[edit]

Visayan-English dictionary (1911)

https://archive.org/details/adb1552.0001.001.umich.edu

A Bisayan grammar and notes on Bisayan rhetoric and poetics and Filipino dialectology (1908)

https://archive.org/details/bisayangrammarno00romurich

A Bisayan Grammar and Notes on Bisayan Rhetoric and Poetics and Filipino Dialectology By Norberto Romuáldez

http://books.google.com/books?id=b6ITAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

The Lord's prayer in 250 languages and 180 forms of writing By Pietro Marietti, Wendell Jordan S. Krieg, Catholic Church. Congregatio de Propaganda Fide

http://books.google.com/books?id=uUhiAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA361#v=onepage&q&f=false

Mga paquigpulong sa Iningles ug Binisaya (1905)

https://archive.org/details/afu8653.0001.001.umich.edu

Diccionario español-bisaya para las provincias de Sámar y Leyte (1914)

https://archive.org/details/aqh5491.0002.001.umich.edu

https://archive.org/details/aqh5491.0001.001.umich.edu

Diccionario bisaya-español [microform] (1885)

https://archive.org/details/aqp5055.0001.001.umich.edu

Cursos de lengua panayana [microform] (1876)

https://archive.org/details/aqa2027.0001.001.umich.edu

Método del Dr. Ollendorff para aprender á leer, hablar y escribir un idioma cualquiera adaptado al bisaya (1871)

https://archive.org/details/afu8648.0001.001.umich.edu

Differences between Tagalog and Bisayan (January 1, 1904)

https://archive.org/details/jstor-592556

The Bisayan Dialects (January 1, 1905)

https://archive.org/details/jstor-592885

Narrative of the voyage of H.M.S. Samarang, during the years 1843-46 : employed surveying the islands of the Eastern archipelago; accompanied by a brief vocabulary of the principal languages (1848)

https://archive.org/details/narrativevoyage00adamgoog

https://archive.org/details/narrativevoyage01adamgoog

Cebuano language

Ang Dila Natong Bisaya

http://archive.org/details/AngDilaNatongBisaya

Rajmaan (talk) 14:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 June 2015

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved as withdrawn. Initial consensus seems to be too many disparate topics bundled in one nomination.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

– Same rationale as Tagalog, Tagalogs, & Filipinos. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:CONCISE Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 03:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong procedural Oppose All primary topic discussions should be handled separately. They do not relate to other discussions that are not concerning PT. I don't think you've given due diligence to all your selected targets. And claims of primary topic for Filipino and Maguindanao being just the languages are highly suspect without evidence. Further, the proposal for Maguindanao is procedurally invalid since you'd need to delete the target article; While you haven't indicated if you wanted a massive hatnote for Filipino or not. -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 04:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment even after the request modification, there are still many primary topic disputes listed, and they should be treated separately, since each is independent of each other; so this is still procedurally very bad. (a PT dispute is if the target redirects elsewhere, or is a dab page, or is a different article, and you want to overwrite it) -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 05:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest withdrawal of request or speedy close as per the above. GregKaye 06:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-I've altered the request per the comments above. There was too many articles ot was hard to catch all the errors but thanks anyway. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 09:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Now how was Tagalog people moved to Tagalogs in the first place? "Tagalogs" doesn't just sound awkward, it's rarely used even in Philippine English. Tagalog, like English, Scottish, Irish or Welsh, is an ADJECTIVE, and the way to refer to the people speaking the language is by just saying Tagalog or Tagalog people. The same for those other languages. I would suggest reverting to avoid confusing the readers with Tagalog and Tagalogs, Visayan, Visayas and Visayans, etc. The old X people and X language format actually helps to properly distinguish the two which as adjectives are really ambiguous. --RioHondo (talk) 10:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose and Request Speedy Close. All of these requests should be discussed separately, most seem controversial. Khestwol (talk) 15:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose in agreeance with User:Khestwol most of these should not be moved or renamed at all. Abrahamic Faiths (talk) 00:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 29 October 2019

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Visayan languages → Bisayan languages – Per WP:COMMONNAME. The overwhelming majority of sources employs "Bisayan languages" for the linguistic subgroup, e.g. Zorc (1977)[1], Wollf (2001),[2] Brown & Ogilvie (2009)[3], Blust (2013)[4], Reid (2013)[5]. Glottolog and Ethnologue also employ "Bisayan".

Note that "Visayan" is the commonly used adjective derived from "Visayas"; "Visayan languages" in its primary sense means "languages of or related to the geographical area of the Visayas". "Bisayan languages" on the other hand is a linguistic grouping that largely overlaps with the latter, but also comprises languages of non-Visayan ethnolinguistic groups (e.g. Tausug, Cuyonon). WP:COMMONNAME therefore has to be considered specifically in a linguistic context.

References

  1. ^ Bisayan languages—Zorc, David Paul (1977). The Bisayan Dialects of the Philippines: Subgrouping and Reconstruction. Canberra: Australian National University. doi:10.15144/PL-C44.
  2. ^ Bisayan languages—Wolff, John U. (2001). "Cebuano". In Garry, Jane; Galvez Rubino, Carl R. (eds.). Facts About the World's Languages: An Encyclopedia of the World's Major Languages, Past and Present. New York: H. W. Wilson.
  3. ^ Bisayan languages—Brown, Keith; Ogilvie, Sarah (2009). Concise Encyclopedia of Languages of the World. Oxford: Elsevier. ISBN 978-0-08-087774-7.
  4. ^ Bisayan languages—Blust, Robert (2013). The Austronesian Languages (revised ed.). Australian National University. hdl:1885/10191. ISBN 978-1-922185-07-5.
  5. ^ Bisayan languages—Reid, Lawrence A. (2013). "Who Are the Philippine Negritos? Evidence from Language". Human Biology. 85 (1).

– Austronesier (talk) 09:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC) —Relisted. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 17:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose This is merely a cosmetic change. The languages are associated with the islands and there is no geographic grouping that uses the "b". Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 02:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment+Addenda. @Shhhhwwww!!: Thank you for bringing this up. It is correct that the common geographic and ethnic term is "Visayan". But again, this is specifically about the linguistic subgroup, and not about the "Languages of the Visayas". The authors cited above do write "Visayan" when referring to geography and ethnic groups, and the term "Bisayan" was deliberately chosen, since not all languages in the Visayas are "Bisayan languages":

"There are also islands near or within the Visayan region that have speakers of non-Bisayan languages: Cagayan has Kagayanen, and Camiguin has Kinamigin , both are Manobo languages (Elkins 1974); Capul has Abaknon, a Samalan language; and Agutaya has Agutaynen, a Kalamian language. All of these languages have borrowed from their Visayan neighbours." – Zorc (1977, p.8, empahsis added)

In order to maintain the current page name "Visayan languages", you need to present a reliable source (ideally a specialist, i.e. linguistic source; but also any reliable tertiary non-specialist source) which spells the linguistic subgroup with a "V". I want to add another source from a notable scholar, viz. Cecilio Lopez (the "Father of Philippine lingustics"). In Lopez (1967), he also refers to the subgroup as "Bisayan languages".[1]
As for the "cosmetic change": the actual change was made in WP when the page was created as "Visayan languages", contrary to the spelling convention employed in the sources. But it is not in the hands of WP editors to "correct" the sources, especially when these are from the leading experts in the field of Philippine linguistics (Lopez, Zorc, Reid) or Austronsesian linguistics in general (Wolff, Blust).

References

  1. ^ Bisayan languages—Lopez, Cecilio (1967). "Origins of the Philippine Languages". Philippine Studies. 15 (1): 130–166. JSTOR 42720176.
–Austronesier (talk) 10:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is still not the common name since there are other sources that specifically says "Visayan languages".[1][2][3]

References

  1. ^ Visayan languages—Adelaar, Alexander (2005). "The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar: a historical perspective". In Adelaar, Alexander; Himmelamnn, Nikolaus (eds.). The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar. London: Routledge. pp. 1–42., page 16.
  2. ^ Visayan languages—Journal of Oriental Studies, Hong Kong University Press, 1954. Page 182.
  3. ^ Visayan languages—Lipski, John M. (1992). "New thoughts on the origins of Zamboangueño (Philippine Creole Spanish)". Language Sciences. 14 (3): 197–231., page 203
Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 01:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment+Addenda @Shhhhwwww!!: I have taken the liberty to expand two of your citations (couldn't specify the article in "Journal of Oriental Studies" in a quick search). Adelaar and Lipski are notable researchers, so you have dug up reliable sources for the "V"-spelling. For the convenience of other editors who might still come and join the discussion, I have tagged each citation with "Visayan languages" and "Bisayan languages" for easier tracking.
Note that "common" does not mean "exclusive", but implies that usage of the common name strongly outweighs the use of other extant names, which I believe is the case with "Bisayan languages". In the same volume by Adelaar & Himmelmann (2005), there is a chapter by Hein Steinhauer, "Colonial history and language policy in Insular Southeast Asia and Madagascar". There, Steinhauer writes "Bisayan" when referring to the "Bisayan languages", but also – I admit, against common usage – when referring to ethnic Visayans.
I can add three very influential tertiary sources: The Encyclopædia Britannica uses both spellings in an inconsistent manner[1], while Merritt Ruhlen's A Guide to the World’s Languages, Volume I: Classification lists "Bisayan languages" as a branch of the Austronesian languages (see here at kwami's excerpt of Ruhlen 1987).[2] Finally, the US Library of Congress uses "Bisayan languages" as a categorizer.[3]

References

  1. ^ [B/V]isayan languages—Encyclopædia Britannica, search for "Visayan languages" or "Bisayan languages". A direct link to the query is blocked by WP.
  2. ^ Bisayan languages—Ruhlen, Merritt (1987). A Guide to the World's Languages, Vol. 1: Classification. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press.
  3. ^ Bisayan languages—The Library of Congress, Linked Data Service, LC Subject Headings.
–Austronesier (talk) 10:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

badlit

[edit]

The article calls badlit as "distinct from the Tagalog baybayin", but this is an opinion not backed by scientific evidence and is more likely political in nature. The consensus by researchers is that the various scripts such as Pampanga "kulitan", Bisaya "kabadlit", Ilocano "kurditan", Bicol "basahan", and Tagalog "baybayin" are all local names for the same script. The surviving samples for each are too few to establish any of them as a distinct writing systems and the variations between them can be attributed to differences in handwriting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.29.112.174 (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bisayan_languages&oldid=1211091332"