tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6954980542950250593.post2485872019440781681..comments2024-01-07T06:02:25.272+08:00Comments on Make Me Blush: Tyrone Acierto's The Grave Bandits - Fun Time in Zombie TownCathy Penahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07208160859321153472noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6954980542950250593.post-45806403402943443912012-12-20T12:54:31.244+08:002012-12-20T12:54:31.244+08:00Language is, in fact, politically determined. This...Language is, in fact, politically determined. This isn't an act of arrogant supremacy as this is done in many historical accounts worldwide, but a mere act of finding a unifying language. <br /><br />The national language issue has been debated far and wide in the last century, and has therefore been settled accordingly. A segment of the society may deem it politicizing, but what is so wrong with finding a common ground where spoken tongue is concerned? We all can’t speak Hiligaynon or Binisaya or Ilocano, but a great majority speaks Tagalog because “Tagalog” per se, constitutes most of the form of the “national language” called Filipino, the lengua franca.<br /><br />When I travel outside the country, I speak, like most, what’s considered “universal” – the English language. This has never made me feel like my “vernacular” is an inferior language simply because I do not use it to speak to the French when I am in Paris. <br /><br />I had an Argentine friend who spoke not a single English, but when he travels every year, he carries a “pocket translator” and an English dictionary. I am pointing this out to underline the need of a unifying language without necessarily looking down on the vernacular or, for my friend, the Argentine Spanish which has minor differences from the Espanol spoken by the nationals of Spain or Mexico and a big chunk of the Latino nations. <br /><br />People from Nice, France, for example, employ their traditional Nicard, yet I very well doubt they feel inferior about it. My lola grew up in the Visayas yet we share a common language of expression. We never debate which is the more superior – or inferior - tongue because doing so is preposterous.<br /><br />While I understand the implication in this discussion: that all languages should be referred as “languages” because the term dialect (as per my usage) is “inaccurate” or even a bit pejorative, I see nothing wrong with trying to point out the fact that “Binisaya” (“Di Ingon Nato”) or “Ilonggo” (“Salvi”) is a regional language, thus a “dialect” in comparison to “Filipino” used by perhaps 98% of all the cinematic output of the country. After all, pages from this blog, as well as other English-language blogs, are being read by other people from countries other than the Philippines. Besides, there is nothing wrong with “labeling” if all we’re after is specificity. Cathy Penahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07208160859321153472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6954980542950250593.post-47418566659956160412012-12-20T11:22:55.814+08:002012-12-20T11:22:55.814+08:00PS: similarities in the various tongues spoken in ...PS: similarities in the various tongues spoken in the Philippines is not a surprise, since all our languages, save for the Creole ones, are Austronesian. You'll be surprised to find very similar words from as far as Indonesia and even Eastern Madagascar, because they are all Austronesian languages.<br /><br />It is the same for the Indo-European languages. There are hundreds of words from, example, the English language, which you can connect with those from Spanish, German, French, and Portuguese -- but they are languages because of the lack of this thing called mutual intelligibility.<br /><br />There is the mutual intelligibility test to see if a tongue is a language or a dialect.<br /><br />If Speaker of Language A vocally communicates with Speaker of Language B (both having no past knowledge of each other's tongue), and they do not understand each other, then they are speaking two different languages.<br /><br />Hence, if an Ilocano-speaker communicates with, say, a Waray speaker, they won't understand each other, because they are speaking two different languages.<br /><br />If a so-called "Filipino" speaker communicates with a speaker of Quezon Tagalog, they will still understand each other in spite of not getting a few words here and there, and in spite of having different expressions and intonation. Hence, they are speaking two different dialects of the same language.<br /><br />If an Ilonggo speaker (who was never taught Filipino/Tagalog) communicates with a Filipino/Tagalog speaker, they two speakers won't understand each other, because they are speaking two different languages.<br /><br />-j.laxAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6954980542950250593.post-9845963141522400292012-12-20T11:09:23.262+08:002012-12-20T11:09:23.262+08:00sad, as this simple labeling further demotes the ...sad, as this simple labeling further demotes the status of Philippine languages, making local speakers look at their own language as inferior because they are portrayed as just dialects, when science itself (linguistics, Ethnologue, Summer Institute of Linguistics) has<br /><br />That Filipino is the language, and Tagalog, Kapampangan, etc. are dialects is a political move, the way China does with it Zhonghua Minzu agenda to elevate the status of Mandarin as a national language. Linguisticall speaking, Filipino and Tagalog are the same, Filipino in fact being a dialect of Tagalog. Hence, for example, you won't see a separate Tagalog category from the Filipino category of the Palanca Awards, when there are Iluko, Hiligaynon, and Sinugbuanong Binisaya categories, because, well, Filipino and Tagalog are the same languages.<br /><br />We ask writers and whoever we can convince to refer to our languages as languages. Some of us have successfully swayed, for example, Cinemalaya and Cinemanila, to revise the provision on "the use of "Filipino, or any Philippine dialect". Now, they are using "Filipino or any Philippine language."<br /><br />But still, it is your prerogative, whether to stick with the political definition or the scientific definition, as it is your freedome to choose. Just laying out the situation.<br /><br />Regards,<br />j.laxAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6954980542950250593.post-5597203561230293912012-12-20T01:58:30.544+08:002012-12-20T01:58:30.544+08:00Jason:
Language is the general accepted tongue of...Jason:<br /><br />Language is the general accepted tongue of a country. But I am aware that calling Visayan, Ilonggo, Chabacano or Bol-anon as “the language of its region” is not wrong. They’re simply not the accepted and unifying tongue of a country. After all, when formal documents require us to supply the language we use as a nation, we say “Filipino”. “Tagalog” was a term referred to as “national language” by President Manuel L. Quezon in 1939. This “common tongue” was renamed “Pilipino” in 1959. The 1973 constitution further refined it and declared it as “Filipino”. Saying that the national language is Tagalog is not accurate.<br /><br />But to say that “dialect” is a “variation of a language” in the context of regionality (the one you pointed out was Batangueno Tagalog and Manila Tagalog”) or origin (British English or Australian English) is likewise debatable. <br /><br />The number “three”, for example, is called “tulo” in Cebuano; “tuyo” for the Surigaonons; “atlu” for the Kapampangans; “tallu” for the Ibanags; “tatdo” for the Ivatans; “tatlo” for the Tagalogs. <br /><br />The term “day” is “aldaw” for the Ilocanos; “aldo” for the Kapampangans; “araw” for the Tagalogs; “adlaw” for most of the different regions in Visayas and Mindanao; “kdaw” for the Tiboli. They are clearly a “variation of language”, i.e. dialect, yet the expanse of these variations cover the different regions of the country – from extreme north to extreme south. They are “languages” AND they are “dialects” as well. There is a variation of term from a base language, yet they hail from the different regions all over the archipelago. The definition of the term should easily negate what’s considered as a “linguistic misconception”. Otherwise, that definition would contradict itself. <br /><br />Your contention would be based on an article entitled “The Language Planning Situation of the Philippines” written by Andrew Gonzales (2007), published in the “Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development” which states that “Philippine languages are often referred to by Filipinos as dialect partly as a relic of the inaccurate vocabulary used in literature during the American period (1898–1946).” This is exactly where I am coming from. <br /><br />To “regionalize” the term “language”, I have to use “dialect”. When I travel to, say Palawan or Siquijor, it is more “exacting” to ask them what their “dialect” is, knowing that “language” is a more general term – the “standard spoken tongue”, thus must refer to “Filipino” – and obviously I don’t have to ask that. But to really finish this discussion, it would probably be prudent to just use “vernacular” instead of “dialect”… but then saying “in Visayan vernacular” seems redundant. “Visayan” is a local language. “Vernacular” is the local tongue”. Same same. “Visayan” alone seems awkward because it’s more of a descriptive adjective. <br />Cathy Penahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07208160859321153472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6954980542950250593.post-1238724298115289202012-12-19T22:56:00.049+08:002012-12-19T22:56:00.049+08:00Hope I'll have the chance to watch this!
I ju...Hope I'll have the chance to watch this!<br /><br />I just noticed, when referring to other Philippine languages, you call them dialects. Would just like to tell you have this is a linguistic misconception, as Cebuano, Ilocano, Bikol, etc. are also languages. A dialect is a variation of a language, such as Batangueno Tagalog and Manila Tagalog (Tagalog being the language), or British English and Australian English (English, being the language from which these dialects are come from).<br /><br />-j.laxAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com