[An-lang] Malay in broader terms--Filipino/Pilipino

Sat Jun 4 00:23:03 UTC 2005

(I realize this is not quite central to the question of what "Malay" means,
but due to the use of the term "Pilipino" in the preceding dialogue, I would
like to insert that...)

One reason not to refer to Philippine citizens as "Pilipinos" with a "P" is
that they would not refer to themselves that way. They may very likely refer
to themselves as "Filipinos" with an "F", however. Despite the fact that the
name of the country is "Republika ng Pilipinas" with a "P", its residents
are properly referred to as "Filipinos" with an "F", in both the English and
Filipino languages.

Likewise, the politically correct way to refer to the current national
language (as decreed by the 1987 Constitution, Article 14, Section 6) is
Filipino with an "F", not Pilipino with a "P".

"Pilipino" was used during a certain period of Philippine history to
refer to one the "official" languages of the country, but "Filipino" now
takes the place of "Pilipino" as both an "official" and "national" language
of the Philippines (with a "Ph"!). Basically, "Pilipino" no longer exists.

Steve Q

----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Sundita" <csundita at yahoo.com>
To: <an-lang at anu.edu.au>
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 9:01 PM
Subject: Re: [An-lang] Malay in broader terms

>
>
> --- David Gil <gil at eva.mpg.de> wrote:
>
>>>  From the above, it should be obvious that for linguistic and
>> ethnographic discourse, the more limited Indonesian usage is more
>> precise and hence more appropriate than the broader Malaysian one.  And
>> it would also seem to be preferable on ethical grounds.  Maybe Pilipinos
>> don't mind being called Malays, but many Indonesians of other
>> ethnicities would find this very strange.  Using Malay as a cover terms
>> for Minangkabau, Javanese, Bugis and so forth is a bit like using German
>> as a cover term for Swedish, Dutch, English and so on.
>
> This is very helpful. Thanks.
>
> Now, on Wikipedia, I have someone who objected to the use of "ethnic
> Austronesian." I plan on responding to this person over the weekend, but I
> would like your or any body else's insight as well. I want to reconcile
> this
> issue, but I feel my expertise to be inadequate. He brought up the
> Indo-Europeans, but I feel that this doesn't really compare. Or does it?
>
> This is what they wrote:
>
> Ethnic Austronesians?
> What is an ethnic Austranesian?
>
> First of all we must outline what "ethnic" and "ethnicity" actually mean.
>
> Then we must determine if we can honestly deem the speakers of the world's
> largest spanning linguistic family as a monolithic "ethnic" group, when in
> fact
> most so called "Austronesians" (ie speakers of Austronesian languages) are
> actually belong to various unrelated TRUE "ethnic groups"; Malays, native
> Taiwanese, Polynesians, etc. These groups have nothing in common with one
> another, other than their current spoken languages being derived from an
> ancient proto-Austronesian language spoken tens of thousands of years ago.
> The
> Malays (of the Malay archipelago, which encompasses the Philippines,
> Indonesia
> and Malaysia) as a group are a valid ethnic grouping, as these people's
> cultures, customs, and traditional tribal beliefs - prior to the
> relatively
> recent introduction of Abrahamic religions - are a common shared related
> and
> intertwined heritage.
>
> To propose the label "ethnic Austronesian" is like proposing "ethnic
> Indo-European". No such thing exists, because Indo-European is a
> linguistic
> group, even though within this linguistic group one can often find "ethnic
> groupings", but which are unrelated.
>
> That which makes an "ethnic Afghan" related to an "ethnic Bengali" and
> "ethnic
> Hindu" - but not "ethnically" related to the examples which will be given
> below
> - is their cultural customs (a.k.a. ethnicity), not their languages (which
> are
> Indo-European). Likewise, that which makes an "ethnic Spaniard" related to
> an
> "ethnic German" and an "ethnic Greek" - but not "ethnically" related to
> the
> examples which were given above - is their shared cultural customs (a.k.a.
> ethnicity) not their languages (which are also Indo-European).
>
> "Ethnic Austronesian" is a very poor attempt at coining a new "ethnic"
> category
> in order to avoid using "Malay" (which is a true group, whether people
> want to
> belong to it or not). In fact, by simple definition of "ethnic" grouping,
> "Ethnic Austronesian" fails to meet every criteria of what constitutes an
> ethnicity; customs, codes, traditions and ancestral ties. Ancient
> linguistic
> relationship is one of the last factors looked in defining an ethnic
> group, and
> it is most certainly not the ONLY factor to be used when determining
> "ethnicity".
>
> Ancient linguistic relationships, are just that; an ancient linguistic
> relationship. I can't stress this enough. One wouldn't propose both people
> from
> Turkey and Japan are "ethnic Uralo-Altaics", because Turkish and Japanese
> are
> proposed members of this linguistic family. Even if it was shown that they
> are
> members of this family of languages, this only makes them related
> languages,
> not an "ethnic grouping", especially not in the context of what
> "ethnicity"
> means, and considering the unrelatedness of modern Turkish and Japanese
> people.
> Such is the case of the Polynesians, native Taiwanese and Malays suggested
> to
> be "ethnic Austronesians".
>
> "Also, I reverted Malay to Austronesian. Malay is a misleading term that
> is
> being avoided." Quoted from an Edit Summary posted by user Christopher
> Sundita
> on 00:45, 3 Jun 2005.
>
> The term Malay could only be "a misleading term" for the uneducated and
> academically ignorant. Well, aren't we lucky that the purpose of Wikipedia
> (and
> education in general) is to combat academic ignorance in an effort to
> educate
> all those wishing to learn ;-)
>
> It's counterproductive for us (as Wikipedians) to coin and propagate
> inaccurate
> terms (like "ethnic Austronesian") instead of employing real and accurate
> terms
> that already exist, and educate the reader as to the proper usage. In the
> case
> of term "Malay", people should educate those that think this term has only
> the
> one meaning of "from Malaysia", which in any case is incorrect, since
> something
> or someone from Malaysia is "Malaysian", and not necessarily "Malay";
> "Malay"
> means from the Malay Archipelago, of which Malaysia is only one country,
> Indonesia and the Philippines the other two). In this away we can
> eradicate any
> limited knowledge of the term that may be responsible of its ambiguity in
> the
> first place, instead of cluttering the world and this encyclopædia with
> half-baked ideas that have taken the form of new terms.
>
> ---
>
> --Chris Sundita
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Discover Yahoo!
> Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news and more. Check it out!
> http://discover.yahoo.com/mobile.html
> _______________________________________________
> An-lang mailing list
> An-lang at anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/an-lang

_______________________________________________
An-lang mailing list
An-lang at anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/an-lang