Talk:Central Bikol

Masbatenyo

Can someone please tell me what is 'mangugubat' or 'mangaraway' or 'hangaway' in Masbatenyo? Thanks. Si lapu lapu (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)si lapu lapu

Merge

Is anyone interested in merging this article with the article Bikol languages to reduce confusion?23prootie 08:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

How about moving this to a new article called Languages of the Bicol Region? Seems more appropriate to meAlternativity 17:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Merged, though the languages article needs cleanup. kwami (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Speakers

how can a language have 2.4 total speakers. There is either a missing unit here or this article isn't significant since the number of speakers is so small.

Should be million, obviously. --Chris S. 13:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Dialectal variation

Re Philippine languages#Dialectal variation, do speakers of these dialects understand each other, or are they really different languages?

No. People only an hour away from each other speak very different dialects. Grammar is the same, and morphology of words is easily tracked over distance but the dialects aren't mutually intelligible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BicolBandit (talk • contribs) 03:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete this redirect page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.217.13.248 (talk) 16:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Least Mutually Intelligible with Tagalog? Tagalog is a central Philippine language like Bikol, there are many other Philippine languages more different from Tagalog than Bikol. Ilokano for example uses "ti" instead of Ang whereas many Bikol dialects use a similar marker (more similar to Ang than ti which is in cognate with the name marker "si"!) "an". Tagalog is admittedly lexically digressive from many other central Philippine languages because of its proximity to more distantly related languages on Luzon but it is outrageous to say that any one language is the most distant without providing a citation or any evidence to back up the claim. Brianc26 (talk) 01:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Ergative?

I've been reading some articles about philippine languages recently and I can't remember that anyone has referred to Bikol grammar as an ergative-system, nor can I understand for what reasons you would classify Bikol as an ergative-language. Can anyone explain this to me? 84.119.76.74 (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Most Philippine languages follow the Austronesian alignment, a hybrid system between a Nom-acc system and an ergative system. The system for most philippine languages generally leans more ergatively than nom-acc, and general consensus is slowly reaching an agreement that Philippine languages follow an ergative system. The UCLA meeting in 1991 between various Austronesian linguists from universities across the United States (e.g. University of Hawaii and MIT) and the Philippines came to a non-conclusive conclusion. Since then most linguists who previously argued that Philippine languages are Nom-Acc and that Ergative verbs are like the passive voice in English have been changing their opionions to agree with the linguists who say that Philippine languages are Ergative Absolutive. Arguements for Ergativity: 1) In all Austronesian languages in the philippines for example you cannot use an actor-focused verb (Nom-acc verb) if the direct object is a pronoun or a name, but have to use a object focused (ergative verb) or else switch to a "sa" pronoun/name. 2) There is no Wh-word in any austronesian language for who or what, if who or what is behaving grammatically as the direct object (the verb is forced into object-focus and the object (sino or ano in tagalog, unsay in Ilonggo for example) winds up with an Ang marker, just like the subject arguement of an intransitive verb) 3) If Philippine languages are treated as ergative-absolutive languages, then it would follow the general assumption that ergativity is a feature that occurs in pockets of languages (e.g. Aboriginal languages are almost all ergative). And it would be a possible way that the substrate Negrito (aboriginal) culture in the Philippines affected the local austronesian languages. Brianc26 (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:Merge

I proposed to merge the page Bikol language to this one, because despite the different titles they both talk about the Central Bikolano language. --Flavio.filoni (talk) 08:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)