Tagalog-15

Sun Apr 29 05:40:29 UTC 2001

I agree with most of the things you said here, Jean-Paul.
Indeed the concept of Filipino is precisely what Tagalog has evolved into.

As far as the legislation of the adoption of words from other Philippine
languages, how can any linguist worth his salt believe that this can happen
by fiat?!
Ernesto Constantino is a fine linguist and he knew that this can only happen
as a result of natural linguistic processes such as contact phenomena,
bilingualism, cognate and genetic relationships, etc. There seems to be a
cultural reflex at play in all this, however.  As a compatriot of mine had
wryly remarked, "In the Philippines, things have to be legislated if they
are to happen at all."

Re syntax:  Constantino did not make a blanket statement of "sameness".  His
article circa 1968 in LINGUA demonstrated what the basic sentence structure
of 26 Philippine languages was like and found them to be essentially the
same. He did not make the claim for all Philippine languages.  Later on, he
asserted that this being the case, we can then say that Filipino is based
not just on one language [Tagalog] but on Philippine languages.

Regardless of their provenance, and however we wish to refer to it, Filipino
is in actual fact the alter ego of Tagalog.
As I see it, Filipino is a political concept; Tagalog is a linguistic
concept.

Paz

Paz Buenaventura Naylor, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor, Asian Languages and Cultures
Faculty Associate, Center for Southeast Asian Studies
Program Associate, Linguistics
The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI 48109
Home Address: 2032 Winsted, Ann Arbor MI 48103
           Tel/Fax:  (734) 995-2371

----- Original Message -----
From: "potet" <POTETJP at wanadoo.fr>
To: " AUSTRONESIAN LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTICS" <AN-LANG at anu.edu.au>
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 3:21 PM
Subject: Tagalog-15

> Now I can see some light in this obfuscated issue. Thanks a lot, Dr.
> RUBRICO, for your rich answer.
>
> ""the 1987 Constitution: Art IV Sec 6. "The national language of the
> Philippines is Filipino. As it evolves, it shall be
> further developed and enriched on the basis of existing Philippine and
other
> languages. "
> How can Tagalog be Filipino in the context of the  above provison? Will
> Tagalog + Sebuano + Hiligaynon, English, Spanish, Arabic, etc. be Tagalog
> still?" Jessie Grace RUBRICO
>
> Tagalog or Filipino may borrow as many words as necessary, they will still
> remain the same language(s).
> Every French person knows the Languedoc/Provençal term _mas_ (local
> pronunciation [mas], often pronounced [ma:] in the rest of France) < Latin
> _mansum_ cf. Tag. "tíráhan". This term has the same origin as the French
> word _maison_ "house" < Latin _mansio_ "tíráhan", but refers to a little
> farmhouse in the South-East of France (low roof, Roman tiles etc.).  The
> inclusion of  _mas_ and other provincial terms into French enriches it,
but
> does not change it into another language.
>
> "How do the two differ?
>  1. alphabet: 28 [letters] for Filipino; 20 for Tagalog
> 2. syllable construction,consonant clusters, phonotactics --
> 3. orthography/spelling
> 4. vocabulary
> 5. grammatical construction -- very minimal reduplication (Fil) - verbal
> affixation: simplification/ mag- preferred
> --poster at the lobby of UP AS Hall: Bawal magsigarilyo (Fil) vs. Bawal
> maninigiralyo (Tag)
> Ayaw niyang magpunta vs. Ayaw niyang pumunta" Jessie Grace RUBRICO
>
> You certainly have many points here particularly when you deal with
> phonology. I wonder however if the grammatical changes you mention were
not
> already present in Tagalog.
>
> I also noticed that Visayans found it easier to use _mag-_ verbal forms
> because these leave the stem untouched, hence clear. _Mang- / pang-_ forms
> with their harmonisation of _-ng_ with the initial of the stem, and its
> absortion when it is weak (mainly unvoiced), makes them somehow difficult
to
> handle for a non-native speaker of Tagalog, hence _mang- + sigarílyo >
> manigarílyo_ replaced by _mag-sigarílyo_.  _ -Um-_ verbal forms, too - but
> to a lesser extent -  seem to be replaced by _mag-_ forms, e.g.
> mag-teléponó_ instead of _teléponó + -um- > tumelépunó_ "to telephone" .
In
> brief, simple prefixation is preferred to complexe prefixation and
> infixation.
>
> Besides, I have noticed that Tagalog has been evolving into an analytical
> language.
>
> For instance _maki- / paki-_ verbal formals of request are now replaced by
> _pakiúsap_ "request" (+ linker) followed by simple forms.
>
> Similarly, _maka-_ verbs of  ability are replaced by _pwéde _ "can/ could
<
> Spanish puede" + linker + simple form , or - less common and always
> negative - _(hin)dî káya_ "unable" + nang + performer + ang + verb, e.g.
> Hindî káya nang huwés ang pumások sa kaniyáng opísina. = The judge was
> unable to enter his office.".
>
> I have the impression _ika-_ causative verbal verbs - and I mean causative
> not factitive - have almost disappeared from spoken Tagalog.
> Doesn't e.g. "Lubháng ikinalungkót kó ang kaniyáng pagpapakamatáy. = His
> suicide saddened me very much." sounds academic, and wouldn't the person
in
> the street rather say "Malungkót na malungkót akó dáhil sa kaniyáng
> pagpapakamatáy. = I am very sad because of his suicide."
>
> By the same token relatives the antecedent of which is a word for "cause"
no
> longer involve _ika-_ causative verbs.
> For instance I don't think e.g. "Iyán ang dahiláng ikinalungkót kó. = This
> is the reason why I got sad." would be used in the press. Instead I think
> they would write: "Iyán ang dahilán kung bákit nalungkót akó. = ditto."
>
> Even factitives verbs seem to be on their way out. For example I think
> people will say "Inórder / inútos ni Carlos na itayô yung bágong gusálì. =
> Carlos ordered that this new building be built." instead of "Ipinagpatayô
ni
> Carlos ang bágong gusálìng iyón. = Carlos had this new buiding built."
>
> This evolution may be due to the combined influence of Spanish and
English,
> but, somehow, I suspect that Tagalog was bound to shed part of its more
> complex structures according to the basic principle of linguistic economy:
> the simpler and the more analytical a construction, the more chances it
> stands to supersede the corresponding complex synthetical one.
>
> [Please correct my examples where they are wrong.]
>
> "Syntax: according to the studies of Dr. Ernesto Constantino, syntax of
> Philippine languages are basically the same (universal)." Jessie Grace
> RUBRICO
>
> This holds true for the languages that belong to the same group, but when
> they differ, the syntaxes are rather different. For instance Cebuano
Visayan
> is close enough to Tagalog, but Ilocano is not.
>
> Thanks a lot, Dr. RUBRICO, for your list of scientific books. I can see
that
> Filipino is now developing its scientific branches for good. I'll try and
> get some of them as soon as possible. Then I'll able to have a serious
> opinion about Filipino in sciences. Congratulations and keep the good work
> going.
>
> Best
>
> Jean-Paul G. POTET. B. P. 46. 92114 CLICHY CEDEX. FRANCE.
>