Talk:List of loanwords in Tagalog

Arabic

Muslim Filipinos use a lot of Arabic-derived words in daily conversations. Sometimes their pronunciation have even been altered to match the local dialect. Shouldn't these words also be included in the loan words? There are many of them, mostly religious in nature; one of the most common is probably "halal" to refer to food that is safe to eat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.137.45 (talk) 11:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Chamorro and Malay/Indonesian

Philippine languages are older languages than the Nuclear Malayo-Polynesian languages where Malay/Indonesian and Chamorro belongs. Austronesian migration started from Formosa, then to the Philippines, then to Borneo, then to Celebes/Java/Sumatra/Malacca/Madagascar/Micronesia/Polynesia. Therefore, Tagalog can't have loan words from Chamorro and malay/Indonesian. Rather, all Austronesian languages have a gradient relationship. Dispute-section tags are added.

49.144.143.6 (talk) 07:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes they can. Cognates between Philippine languages and Malay/Indonesian are of two forms: the older cognates in which the Malay form is an evolution of the Philippine form, and the (newer) modern cognates which arrived in the Philippines during the time of the southeast asian empires. In fact, the Sanskrit/Hindi words in the Philippines arrived via contact with these empires. Spanish chroniclers document that the Philippine nobility speak a lot of Malay in addition to the native language, as Malay was seen as a prestige language. This caused many Malay words to enter the Philippines. For example, "tanghali" meaning "noontime" is definitely "tengah hari" meaning "middle of the day" in Malay, as neither "tang" nor "hali" are morphemic in Tagalog. Words like "dalamhati" and "luwalhati" are modern loans, since "hati" (Malays consider emotions as coming from the liver, not the heart) is already an old cognate of "atay" yet the words use the Malay form "hati" instead of the Philippine form "atay", and the fact that "dalam" and "luar" have equivalents in Tagalog ("loob" and "labas") and "luar" has an older Tagalog cognate "luwa" meaning "to bring out". Thus, while Austronesian languages do have a gradient relationship, modern borrowings exist due to later contact such as trade, religious expansion, and the spread of the empires.

All entries in the Indo/Malay heading must be referenced. A vast majority of the words stated there have the same or similar words/roots in Northern Luzon languages (Ilocano, Cordilleran) and Central Luzon languages (Kapampangan, Sambalic) which are themselves separate from Central Philippine Languages where Tagalog is included. These words could not have been loanwords from Malay/Indo because that would mean the borrowing spread throughout all the tribes within Luzon. That was impossible to happen for the tribalistic and geographic isolation of these different people during the pre-colonial times. In order to evidentiate the words on the list, there must be a dictionary of a proto-Philippine language first. If a Tagalog word doesn’t seem to evolve from any proto-Philippine language word, that that is the only time a word can be even be considered as a loan from any Austronesian languages to the south of the Philippines. Only loan words originating from Indic languages can stand as those seem to have not been adapted by many Northern and Central Luzon languages. 112.200.204.194 (talk) 12:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Cognates

These sections should be removed! The article is about loans. Joemaza (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Mutually intelligible?

Although Spanish and Tagalog are entirely different languages, they have become somewhat mutually intelligible, albeit with much difficulty on the Spanish-speakers' side.

Ridiculous. They are not mutually intelligible at all. I speak Tagalog at home and Spanish in school are they are most definitely not mutually intelligible in the slightest. They are from completely different language groups their syntax and verb systems are completely different—Spanish is a nominative-accusative language and Tagalog is ergative. Also, the claim that 40% of conversational Tagalog uses Spanish loanwords is questionable. It really depends on dialect, e.g. urban people tend to use more Spanish words and rural peoples use more classical ones. Where are the sources of this information?

I agree, unfortunately some Americans here in the U.S.A. believe that if a Filipino speaks Spanish, that’s just because it is the language in the Philippines, syntax and all. It’s as if we are not intelligent people, so if we speak it, it means we grew up with it. Unfortunately it’s the ignorance of the Filipinos themselves that is propagating this stereotype. One Filipino himself wrote about his experience in the blog, He shouted to his teacher: "Esto, means this because that’s where the Tagalog word ‘ito’(which is a Malay word btw) came from, I know because I am from the Philippines." So his teacher said, no wonder. Now here is the problem, his Polish classmate would have asked his mother many times "Co to jest?”, The word “to" being the Polish for esto, and jest the Polish word for Spanish es, but to his teacher, the Polish kid was learning Spanish having to use his intelligence. I have seen Filipinos applying as Spanish speakers pag kinausap mo sa Kastila, anong ginagawa? Eh di nganga na lang, parang tanga — Preceding unsigned comment added by BuhayPinoy (talk • contribs) 02:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Portuguese

Italian, French, German. There should be none or it should be said that the words came via English and Spanish. e.g. Pizza from English which in turn came from Italian. --Jondel 07:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Removed.--Jondel 00:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The presence of so-called 'Portuguese loanwords' in the Tagalog language, such as linggo, bandila, kapitan, among others, are confirmed by their presence and cognates on Malay and other Borneic and Indonesian dialects. According to Salazar, Z., in his book The Malayan Connection, before the Spaniards came to the Philippines, Malay and the Philippine dialects has had the words 'bandila' (Portuguese, bandeira), Linggo (Portuguese, domingo), and Kapitan (Portuguese, capitan), thereby confirming these words as coming from Portuguese provenance. :) --User:Matthewprc 12:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

In Portuguese the word is capitão, not capitan. And "domingo" is pronounced "domingu" so if i came from Portuguese, it should reflect that pronunciation, same with capitão. Mamoahina (talk) 00:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no distinction between final o/u in prehispanic Tagalog, e.g., even Spanish 'espiritu' is sometimes pronounced 'espirito'. Whether Domingo is pronounced with a final o or u, both will still become Linggo in Tagalog. Also the nasal vowel sound in capitão does not exist in Tagalog so there is no reason for Tagalog speakers to retain the Portuguese pronunciation. It makes more sense for capitão to be mispronounced as kapitan. I am not saying that these words are indeed Portuguese (I have no data either way) but just saying that your counterexamples do not negate the statement in question either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.137.45 (talk) 10:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Capitan or Kapitan is the Portuguese-origin loan word in many Indian languages such as Malayalam, Tamil, and Hindi (Kaptan) too. --Sahrudayan (talk) 09:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikidictionary

There is a dictionary for filipino, maybe we should work on it.--Jondel 06:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Please contribute to tl.wiktionary.org--Jondel 04:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Malay loanwords?

Is this really valid? Because tagalog and malaysian and fairly related to each other linguistically, meaning that they might have only similar words because they evolved from a common ancestor, not from word loaning.

I agree, even the syntax is fairly close. I believe the similarities did not come from borrowing but from evolution from a common older language.

Hmm, like latin and Spanish or Italian  ; or Old German and English etc. I will try to work on this. Good point!--Jondel 12:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Redefine as Cognates Shared with Malaysian/Malay

Is everyone agreeable to this?--Jondel 12:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Done--Jondel 10:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

There's no point to include Austronesian cognates in this page, as the title says "Tagalog loanwords". Create another article for this information and move it there or just take it out. 201.21.210.99 19:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Take it out. Including the last few sentences. Unless, there are lexical items that can be traced back as a "loan", it really has no purpose when this article is about loaned words, not cognates.

Some cognates really are loans, such as: tanghali, dalamhati, luwalhati, dalampasigan, maharlika. We should clearly mark which cognates are loans and which ones are not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.137.45 (talk) 11:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

This reminds me of someone on the discussion page about the Malay language article claimed that Tagalog or any Philippine languages are derived from Malay. In addition, they claimed that many of the food term that are derived from Chinese, were also derived from Malay.

Again, people are assuming that if it's a cognate, then it MUST come from their language without any due diligence as to the validity of that claim which can be countered easily.

Joemaza 21:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Most of these words can be traced MUCH further back up the linguistic tree, many all the way to Proto-Austronesian. They are not Malay words borrowed by Tagalog at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.5.18.218 (talk) 08:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Vahay and Bahay

I noticed that the tagalog word for house(bahay) is similar to ivatan word for house(vahay) did proto-tagalog had contact with proto-bashiic is the term bahay a borrowed term from proto bashiic or ivatan

Kasumi-genx (talk) 14:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I find that also interesting that some words do match in both languages. I noticed it too in many Northern languages. Perhaps it has something to do with geographical location and shared cultural similarity? Ugar001 (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Tagalog is a meso-Philippine language and has a closer relationship to Visayan languages than northern languages like Iluko and Ivatan. It is much more likely that both evolved from proto-Philippine *balay. It is probably a coincidence that the L became h in both. Iluko (related to Ivatan) and Visayan languages (related to Tagalog) have both retained the L in balay.

Japanese (Nihonggo) and Miscellaneous Orgins

I firmly believe that the Tagalog toyo is much more closer to the Japanese touyo, which is soy sauce. Plus, one needs to cite reputable references regarding cat meat in pao buns.

Ojtibi (talk) 15:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I think soy sauce is 醤油 in Japanese which is read Shōyu (しょうゆ), not touyo. This is a cognate with Standard Mandarin, (醬油, Jiàngyóu). Besides, etymologically, toyo derives from 豆油/ 荳油 which is a Hokkien word, can be attested in older dictionaries of the Amoy dialect. Can you cite reputable sources for your claims? Ugar001 (talk) 00:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Useless edits

What's with the Italian, French, Russian and German loanwords, all of them are brands not loanwords and official words of the Tagalog language. That person who did those edits must get a life. - User:JohnMarcelo —Preceding undated comment added 17:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC).

Intsík (Fukien Chinese: Din Tiak)

What do the syllables of "Din Tiak" mean? Hongthay (talk) 13:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank You & other words

Why isn't the obvious SALAMAT included under Arabic? And no mention of manong/manoy/mano & its female counterpart. Mamoahina (talk) 00:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Clarifications

I noticed "Kuya (哥哥; Cantonese: ko–ko; Hokkien: keh–ya) – Eldest brother." If you compare the Tagalog word kaka for older brother, it seems closer to structure in Mandarin, gege than Hokkien, keh-ya. Just asking if that is valid, though I think 哥哥 is itself borrowed from another language from a former neighboring culture, adopted to Mandarin. I'm no expert in linguistics but just a theory, could kuya be related to the word 舅仔 which refers to the wife's brother or is the pronunciation too off to be the actual etymology of kuya? I know Southern dialects tend to affix 阿- in names, which explains ate but the 仔 ending corresponds to the noun placeholder of Mandarin Chinese, 子.

I also tried studying Arabic (though I don't claim to have a degree on Linguistics) but question, is the word for flesh/ meat in Arabic , lahm related to laman in Tagalog? Also, daan, i think for way? (there's more i think, just no reliable sources to cite. Sorry) Also, for Persian, isn't the word for tea originally Chinese (tea from Hokkien, while cha from Mandarin, Cantonese and possibly other dialects in China) and the word chai is also used in Arabic? So why categorize under Persian alone?

There is also another dialect in Fujian Province: Hok-ciu or Foochow. Mother is 依奶 which is pronounced approximately i-ne while if you read it in Mandarin, yi-nai. (sorry for the lack of tones and unorthodox romanization for all) Coincidence? Is it also a borrowing or false cognates? Ugar001 (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, it's been 5 years but anyways I'd like to clarify. I'm a chinese-filipino from a family that still speaks philippine hokkien. "Kuya" is most probably from "哥兄(ko-hiaⁿ)". We no longer say it this way in contemporary philippine hokkien but instead we say "阿兄(a-hiaⁿ)" which we commonly spell and pronounce in filipino orthography as "ahiya/ahia" or "aya". This is because we want to differentiate birth order. 阿 (a) refers to the eldest because we can also call other brothers like dihia, sahia, etc. if we have a lot of older brothers from ourselves but we no longer use 哥(ko) very much or at least I don't hear it at all anymore but I assume it was common like a century or decades ago since there are many old chinese-filipino family names that are appended with the -ko suffix or something. Since we still use the 兄(hiaⁿ) part from "阿兄(a-hiaⁿ)" which we pronounce like "hiya/hia" from ahiya and this could be sometimes shortened to say like "aya" when said fast, I think "kuya" is most probably from "哥兄(ko-hia)" especially when pronounced fast in a very filipino way of speaking and like all filipinos, we tend to interchange O and U just like I and E in pronunciation due to prehispanic baybayin only containing 3 vowels where O/U and E/I is merged and interchangeable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlgc1998 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Spanish origin of "Chamorro cognates"

Someone really needs to edit the Chamorro section: more than a few of the words listed are simply Spanish words that Chamorro and Tagalog happened to borrow:

Abogado/Abugadu (Spanish, abogado)
Ágila/Agila (Spanish, águila)
Alambre/Alamle (Spanish, alambre)
Alkalde/Atkadi (Spanish, alcalde)
Alpombra/Atformbra (Spanish, alfombra)
Apelyido/Apiyidu ((Spanish, apellido)
Apurá/Apura (Spanish, apura)
Areglado/Areklao (Spanish, arreglado)
Armas/atmas (Spanish, armas)
Asukal/Asukat (Spanish, azucar)
Ayuno/Ayunu (Spanish, Ayuno)
Baka/Baka (Spanish, vaca)
Bangko/Banko (Spanish, banco)
Bastón/Baston (Spanish, bastón)
Mantikilya/Mantikiya (Spanish, mantequilla) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.70.28.216 (talk) 12:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Needs an expert

This article needs to be checked by an expert in Tagalog. It also needs to be sourced from research papers, books, and documentaries for increased reliability, not just bare URLs. But if I have the time, I would do help in the expansion and addition of appropriate inline citations or footnotes.

Nangangailangan ang artikulong ito ng tulong mula sa eksperto ng wikang Tagalog. Kailangan ring dagdagan ng mga sanggunian gaya ng pananaliksik, aklat, at dokumentaryo para mas maging maaasahan, hindi basta mga websayt o "bare URL" lamang. Tutulong din ako sa pagpapalawak at pagdagdag ng mga inline citations o footnotes kapag may oras ako.

Pcbyed (talk) 20:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Notes

1.:^ Dubious. "Katarungan" is a proof of the existence of a Filipino language distinct from Tagalog, since it is not a Tagalog word but is sourced from the Cebuano word tarong, which means straight. In context, tarong has been made to mean to straighten someone up i.e., punish to inflict justice. The use of the word katarungan in the Filipino language is one of the proofs that Filipino is not Tagalog; Academicians in Filipino, particularly from the University of the Philippines, stress that as a national language, Filipino continues and ought to use and incorporate words from various languages of the Filipinos to become a true national language of the Filipino people. However, regionalistic politicians, their supporters (such as Cebuano columnist Bobit Avila, as exemplified by his opinion article), and some foreign linguists (who, like the American and Spanish historians and by being foreign, have a different view of Philippine phenomena and events and therefore have a tendency to be biased against the ideas of the Filipino people having their own aspirations, civilization, and unique language; see Wenceslao Retana and Fray Miguel Lucio y Bustamante) such as Firth McEachern still tend to equate the one with the other See also Filipino vs. Tagalog.

This is NOT my comment; Only moved another person's comment to here. SomeRandomPasserby (talk) 07:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Is 'tiyan' a loanword?

Does the word tiyan (belly) come from the Chinese word 腸 (chang, intestine)/腸胃 (changwei, belly)? Taposa1 (talk) 15:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Possible. Maybe it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.201.129.73 (talk) 07:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

This will feel rather opinionated, but since we are taking a stretch here I might as well.

'腸' is most likely a root, but location-wise it is unlikely that it would have directly come from historic Mandarin.

As we can see in a loan word 'intsik,' the '-tsik' came from '叔', which in Mandarin would presently read 'shú,' or /ʂu⁵⁵/ (tone 1), but in the past most likely read /ɕɨuk̚/. Other dialects, such as Hokkien or Taiwanese, would have taken this. I have stated "location-wise" since, at that time, the language would only have gotten so far by now if it came from the centre of China. Hokkien and Taiwanese are spoken very, very far from said centre, which would make a suitable hypothetical originator. This, therefore means we would now read 'tsik' or /t͡ɕiɪk̚³²/ (I don't know that tone; I guess it's mid-semi-falling (if that's even a thing)). '叔' was used as this is the only example with similar phonics on the article itself.

'腸,' with a reading of 'cháng' or /ʈ͡ʂʰɑŋ³⁵/ (tone 2) in Mandarin, would be read commonly in Hokkien and Taiwanese as 'tshian' or /t͡ɕʰiɛn²³/ (mid-low-semi-rise is a thing apparently), where Tagalog may get it from.

P.S. made some minor changes to topic as there were a few typing errors. SpinachMaid (talk) 05:24, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Always check sources first: in Robert Blust's Austronesian Comparative Dictionary, Tagalog tiyan is listed as good old Austronesian core vocabulary. Apart from that, Chinese affricates usually become ts (or even t as in ate), but never tiy-. The colloquial pronunciation of tiyan as [t͡ɕan] should not mislead us here. –Austronesier (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

In modern-day Philippine Hokkien, "腸" is pronounced more like "tn̂g" as the vernacular common pronunciation. Only in Taiwan do they pronounce it as "tshiân", and "tshiâng" is only literary pronunciation. It's more likely native, as the Blust source says.--Mlgc1998 (talk) 22:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of loanwords in Tagalog. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150621051322/http://globalnation.inquirer.net/cebudailynews/opinion/view/20091011-229561/The-Indian-in-the-Filipino to http://globalnation.inquirer.net/cebudailynews/opinion/view/20091011-229561/The-Indian-in-the-Filipino

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

On the use of neologisms from Del Rosario's "Maugnayin"

In the section about loanwords from Spanish, some of the "native" Tagalog equivalents were in fact not Tagalog but were neologisms invented by Del Rosario for the creation of the "Wikang Pilipino". I suggest anyone here to stop adding such non-Tagalog neologisms since they really didn't come from the native vocabulary (they were only invented for the creation of the "Wikang Pilipino" which was already defunct ever since the establishment of the Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino in 1991"). Plus, before 1991, the neologisms weren't even approved. According to Director Pineda about why INL (Institute of National Language) didn't stamp its approval on the book:

The Institute of National Language reserves the right to approve the book as to linguistic matters involved therein until after a thorough rediscussion and reevaluation as herein suggested. Let it be understood, however, that the Lupon sa Agham may continue to circulate the book without official sanction. In this way, the newly coined scientific and technical terms will be given a fair chance to get themselves 'accepted in the competition of the market'. Suffice it to say that while the Institute appreciates in its totality the sincere endeavors of the Lupon sa Agham, the former asserts that the Lupon's language model for the post part is at war with the language model of the Institute of National Language.

Since this page only discusses the Tagalog language and not the neologisms present in the "Maugnayin" book that were suggested to enrich the defunct Pilipino language, I would advise everyone to REFRAIN from adding such translations in the "Native Equivalent" columns of the pages. If you can't help it, at least tag it as a "neologism", specifying that its use is not widespread and has yet to gain acceptance because of the fact that it is an invented word. Examples of such words include haynayan, bilnuran and danumsigwasan. Stricnina (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Words from other Philippine languages?

I came here looking for a list of Tagalog/Filipino words that are Cebuano/Visayan in origin but I did not find a list. I was thinking of words like buáng, bayót, tanán, lungsód, katarungan, or even expressions like "Sus Ginóo!". For that matter I was also curious if I can find words from other Philippine languages such Kapampangan (utol, dagul, etc) or Ilocano (ukay-ukay, ading, dinengdeng, bagnet, munamon, etc). Is it possible to add a section on words from other Philippine languages?

Proposal to radically change this Wikipedia page

Hello everyone, and especially to the notable users who have commented here: Paul Christian B. Yang-ed, JohnMarcelo, Kasumi-genx, Jondel, Joemaza, Akuindo, Marc87, Cyrus noto3at bulaga and many others. For a long time I have limited myself on editing the Spanish and Sanskrit section of this Wikipedia page and with the coming of my own copy of the book Tagalog Borrowings and Cognates by Jean-Paul Potet, I am thinking of going outside of my comfortable zone and clean the other sections, possibly with more references. In particular:

• For the Malay section, I want to remove the cognates and add the words with the highest probability of being loanwords in Tagalog (and rename the whole section as Malay loanwords and not about cognates). In order to do this, aside from the book, I am also going to check the online Austronesian Comparative Dictionary to delete entries with reconstructed pan-Austronesian roots. For example, the -hati words like dalamhati, pighati and luwalhati and other compound words like batobalani will be considered loanwords because many sources cite them as such but many of the cognates analyzed in the Austronesian Comparative Dictionary and Potet's book will be removed from the Malay loanwords section.

• Under the Malay section, I want to add a subsection dedicated to Sanskrit loanwords that have been adopted to Tagalog with Malay as intermediary.

• Since many of the Nahuatl words have been adopted by Tagalog/Filipino with Spanish (or specifically the Mexican Spanish variant) as the intermediary language, I ask permission for the section about the Nahuatlismos to be moved under the Spanish section.

• For the Spanish section, I think it is time to impose certain restraints on what kind of words to be added in the tables and my primary reason for this is because there are just so many of them (many books acknowledged the overwhelming quantities of them like in the case of books written by Antonio Quilis and Jean Paul Potet; there's even an entire book dedicated just for the Spanish loanwords, namely Mga hispanismo sa Filipino : batay sa komunikasyong pangmadla ng Filipinas : pag-aaral lingguwistiko by Teresita Alcantara). It is time to classify them and just focus on some of the interesting loanwords. For example, in Potet's book, he only focused on the loanwords which have undergone interesting transformations in phonetics upon adoption into Tagalog like pulubi and kalatas. I on the other hand arbitrarily chose to create subsections for the loanwords with shared characteristics i.e. Spanish pluralized nouns adopted into Tagalog and Spanish verbs with the /r/ phoneme dropped upon adoption into Tagalog. I might add more subsections in the future. EDIT: For the Greek, Latin and Hebrew subsections under Spanish, I am thinking of removing them as they are not restricting enough as subsection categories (especially Latin because majority of Spanish words ultimately came from Latin). The whole purpose of the subsections under Spanish from now on is to restrict the quantity of the Spanish loanwords being added here. There is no point listing every single one of these loanwords here.
  • My suggestion for the Spanish section: just remove the main table of Spanish loanwords and focus on making smaller subsections dedicated to particular loanwords with shared characteristics. I am asking permission to remove the main table once and for all.

• I will also add a single section dedicated for words borrowed from the other Philippine languages such as Cebuano, Ilocano, Kapampangan, etc. (I'll do this regardless once I am armed with the necessary references).

• The other sections require a major cleanup, like in the case of English, Chinese, Tamil, Arabic and Persian, etc. For the Chinese section, I'd like to make a distinction for the recent loanwords cited by Hokkien Chinese borrowings in Tagalog by Gloria Chan-Yap because according to Potet, "many are only used by the Chinese settled in the Philippines, and are no more Tagalog than the names of French dishes in posh Makati restaurants". I am thinking of removing them if they do not appear in major dictionaries like the online KWF dictionary.

As I edit the page, I'll do my best to refer to as many reputable sources as possible, focusing primarily on books, articles from academic journals, etc.

Stricnina (talk) 21:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Supposed Japanese Yasuwi word is probably Hokkien

Hello I'm a chinese-filipino from a family that still speaks philippine hokkien. I'd like to point out that "Yasuwi" recorded under japanese loanwords is more probably of chinese hokkien origin. I have not heard this "Yasuwi" word used around the country that is supposed to mean sexually attractive as a slang but what I have often heard is the philippine hokkien expression "野媠(iá-súi)" which we do pronounce exactly like "yasuwi" if we tried to spell it in filipino orthography and it literally means "very/so pretty". I don't know which part of the country has decided to put some sort of sexual connotation slang on a word as "yasuwi" but I'm assuming if someone in some part of our country has done so enough that it has become some form of slang word somewhere, I would think it is highly likely "yasuwi" comes from hokkien rather than japanese 暑い (atsui) which sounds a little bit farther and the meaning recorded for that supposedly even refers to the weather more. -Mlgc1998 (talk) 17:53, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I have no expertise on the origins of this Tagalog word, but know Japanese. 暑い (atsui) does have a sexual sense. However, there is another Japanese word that seems at least as likely to be a source for Tagalog yasuwi, if it is borrowed from Japanese. There is a verb yasui (stem yasu-) meaning "cheap, easy", which is used to describe a woman who is easily persuaded to have sex.Bill (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• 3D Image of Tagalog component Languages.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

"baho" from Spa. from sense "whiff, odor"

I would like to suggest on this point being a stretch. The Spa. "vaho" is now commonly translated into "whiff" or "vapour." Even if it was said as "odor," it is in a positive manner rather than negative. As I learnt, "baho" also exists in Waray-Waray and in Malay. The ACD states that this is possible, considering Mal. "bau" originated from a doublet of the main attester, PAN "*bahuq", being "*bahu". Not only this, but numerous other words here that could also pass as PAN-based words. That is truly what stinks in this article. SpinachMaid (talk) 05:14, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@SpinachMaid: Agree. Another flaw is that silent "H" in Spanish never appears as /h/ in loans in Tagalog and other Ph languages. Feel free to remove the item. Most etymologies here are taken from Potet (2016) who has mistakenly ascribed a number of inherited PAN words to borrowing from Spanish or Sanskrit. Blust's ACD is definitely a more reliable source. If you find more stuff, please specify and bring it to the talk page. –Austronesier (talk) 09:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Will gladly do. Thank you so much for your input as well; I wouldn't have guessed any other way :) SpinachMaid (talk) 06:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Adding phonology to words listed

This article is long and wordy, but is it possible to add phonetics? This is a language page, and so far barely any pronunciation change has been reflected, but rather, spelling. Proposal to add phonetics to anything but the semantics section [1.5], as that does deal with meaning rather than phonology. This can also extend to Section 1.4 and 1.6-8, but the latter does include a pronunciation change that is due to be shown. Thank you for your consideration and time :) -SpinachMaid (talk) 06:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Potato

The immediate source of Tagalog patatas is no doubt Spanish, but the Spanish word is itself borrowed from Taino, the indigenous language of the island of Hispaniola, now shared by the Dominican Republic and Haiti.Bill (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

True, but I guess it's alright to leave at that; why should we create another section for just one word? SpinachMaid (talk) 05:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

'dasal' from Sp. 'rezar'

This may be viable, seeing that 'dasal' is pronounced like 'rezar' with a shift from coda /r/ to /l/ (compare: /dɑ.ˈsɑl/, /ɾe.ˈsɑl/), but how far can this really go? It is common knowledge that in Tagalog /d/ becomes /ɾ/ in between vowels (I only remember the term starts with an 'l'), but the verb syntax would presume it to stay at /d/, being said as 'magdasal' /ˈmɑg.dɑ.ˌsɑl/. It would never be 'marasal' /ˈmɑ.ɾɑ.ˌsɑl/ as that would apply to adjectives. Or if I am just babbling like an idiot here... SpinachMaid (talk) 05:46, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

The tables

I have removed them as they appeared to be WP:INDISCRIMINATE and mostly unsourced, thus probably WP:OR. Since these have been removed and there is plenty of useful content, this could maybe be moved to Loanwords in Tagalog. RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 15:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

This article is literally called list of loanwords. If you are deleting tables, you might as well do the same thing with the numerous "list" articles here like List of loanwords in Malay, List of loanwords in Indonesian and List of English words of French origin. Also, most of the entries are already present in the referenced books and articles listed in the reference section. Please point out which of the entries are unsourced instead, and then we will discuss what to do with them. Stricnina (talk) 04:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that we cannot remove lists from a "List"-article just because they're lists. If the whole concept is in doubt, this actually is a case for AfD, which could also be applied to various other articles of a similar nature.

Yet, what can and should be duscussed in the context of a list article is how exhaustive the tables ought to be. For small closed sets, like loans from Arabic, Persian, Sanskrit, Malay and Nahuatl complete lists will not exceed the appropriate encyclopedic length. For Chinese, we might reach a critical treshold; for Spanish, we definitely some kind of cut-off. English loanwords are basically and open set, thus we also need clear cut-off criteria here. Complete lists of Spanish and English loanwords belong in Wiktionary.

@Stricnina: As for the sources, we should not only rely on a reference section at the bottom. Each entry, or alternatively every paragraph/table, has to be referenced. Since most of the material is from Potet, this shouldn't be a hard task. And FWIW, some tables already have quite a good number of sources, e.g. Malay. –Austronesier (talk) 07:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: as always, I will have to agree with you on the things you have stated here. About the Chinese, Spanish and English loanwords, I also agree that we need to make a cut-off. As I have mentioned in the section regarding my proposals on changing the Wikipedia article, I have mentioned "reducing" the list through considering only those entries with shared characteristics, notable among linguists. An example can be those loanwords that underwent semantic shift (just a suggestion). Potet, in his book regarding the Tagalog borrowings and cognates, gave more focus on the earliest Spanish and Chinese loanwords (ignoring the 20th century borrowings, among others) while not even bothering making a list of English-derived loanwords. Again with the Spanish loanwords, I would agree on an eventual proposal (if someone proposes it) of removing all tables indiscriminately, focusing instead on descriptive analysis of the different subcategories of Spanish loanwords, with limited number of examples for each case. The examples don't need to be in a table form. Stricnina (talk) 08:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Stricnina: Sorry, I really should have looked at your previous proposal before. It's basically all there! And we could indeed move this article—as suggested by User:RandomCanadian—to Loanwords in Tagalog, and then focus in the case of Spanish and English on the semantic and phonological mechanisms of borrowing, which short exemplary tables (btw, some of the current paragraphs are too impenetrable because of examples embedded in prose).

For the rest (Persian, Malay etc.), full lists won't hurt and are IMO encyclopedic, since they are certainly of philologcal interest. And we should continue to sift Potet's data against Blust's ACD.

The Chinese section should only include common loanwords that are not restricted in use to certain social and ethnic strata of modern Tagalog speakers. –Austronesier (talk) 09:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: I am kind of having a long-term mental burnout now, so I'll focus on the "low-hanging fruit" here. I hope you won't mind if I eliminate the Latin/Greek/Hebrew tables under the Spanish loanwords category. I personally believe that those categories are not discriminating enough as to avoid making this Wikipedia article into a Wiktionary replica instead. Stricnina (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: I also removed the main table for the Spanish loanwords as one of the other "low-hanging fruits" as it is not discriminating enough. Stricnina (talk) 07:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Add context and history, then hierarchise and rephrase ll section headings accordingly

Add history section:

To add the context to this article, insert brief explanation of how loanwords transmitted directly and through intermediary foreign languages. Retain the term "influence" in the section headings while retaining the loandowrd in the namespace. Influences via intermediaries must be recorded as subsection within the higher language group. Wikipedia convention is to add the context, place the context within the context, hence headings and subheadings should be in line with that historic context of key drivers, enablers, facilitators of the transmission of loanwords.

Oceanic silk route was the single largest enabler of transmission of loandowrds in Philippines. The greatest influencers on transmission of loandowrds has been 2 eras of

I. Precolonial Indianised Polities of southeast asia, add images of indosphere

II. Colonial era: if possible also source and add images of influence/colonised global map of those colonisers to show intermediary transmissions e.g. from south americans to filipinos. , Explain large scale and wide spread pan philippines (at least individually across at least one of the LVM - Luzon, Visayas, Mindanao) waves of incoming migration during respective eras, discern the minor localized migration e.g. early formosa/chinese traders to pangasinan, etc and accord those lower due weight in terms of length of text and the tone of phrasing in the article.

A. Pre-historic influences:
Couple of sentences on languages and "likely foreign influences" on the earliest known native people and language of filipinos. Chinese arrived during this era but had lesser influence as polity were not sinocised/chineised but indiaised at local/barangay and regional hierarchy, include chinese language in under heading.

B. Indianized polities's influence
Earliest known written document found in Philippines is Indianised Hindu docuemnt laguna copper inscription. Southeast Asia was under the "mandalas" of Indianised Hindu-Buddhist kingdoms (Srivijaya and Madjapahit) under whom a network of Indianised barangay-based polities evolved (barangay was not a geo specific terms, people of different barangay/clan association reporting to different head/pun could live in same geo, then spanish eliminated it and made barangay geo specific). During this era the language and religion of the indianised court and govt were sanskritised and Hindu Buddhist often under the guidance of brahmin/scholars/priests brought from india numerous among them were tmails.Except mountain/igorot and negrito types native tribes rest are from malay people fleeing from defeated srivijaya and madjapahit kingdoms in Indonesia and Borneo to Panay, Visayas/cebu, Mindanao.

C. Colonial influence
Subsections in the Chronological order of colonization: Spanish, Japanese, and English.

D. Other influences:
Rest of the influences are either

D1. arrived in Philippines "during" those two eras I and II above,

D1.A. intermediary effect i.e. arrived via Indian&IndianisedMalay or colonial languages e.g. Arabic via Indian traders initially and later via Arabs themselves with the advancement in bigger boat building and sailing/navigation techniques.

D1.B. intervening impact i.e. any loanwords that arrived during Indianised polities era even though did not arrive via Indian or malay languages still had direct or indirect influence of Indian culture (and its subsidiary malay), similarly colonial languages had intervening influence which resulted in how the loanwords are adopted with different spelling or within a certain context of usage with specific/limited/expanded meaning compared to the language of origin.

D2. they are relatively minor in terms of quantum of words, frequency of their use and their geological spread within Philippines

Initially create this section here. Perhaps some of it could be later migrated to "languages of Philippines" namespace. better to place here initially as this is as is relatively lower traffic and lower visibility article compared to "languages of Philippines". Finetune here, then transmit this concept to other articles related to Filipino, Malay, Indonesian language family. I have placed this here becasue not every oen reads talkpage, secondly this serves as a more potent encouragement for creation of history section. Thanks. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

You inserted too much WP:UNDUE information and WP:NPOV issues. Reverted the article back to its previous state before the heavy re-organization. Stricnina (talk) 10:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

No worries about removing the unsourced items for now at least. Can be re-added later with citations and rephrasing as appropriate. At last you/other editors are aware of this suggestion and its rationale. Unfortunately, I have not had the time to find citations yet, will do so later. Meanwhile, either use the TOC structure and categorisation as per my earlier edit, or alternatively we could do it later once we have added sourced history/context to each language section. Meanwhile please consider readding some of the sectional "see also" to enricht he text. I have provided detailed response here. Thanks. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

User talk:58.182.176.169, you really need to take seriously your violations of WP:NPOV. Your initial accusations of supposed "Proud to be Catholic Pinoy" bias are totally unwarranted and your whole re-organizing of the article is just you injecting your own POV into a completely neutral article. I'm not even going to bother with your "cultural genocide" and "historical amnesia" rants, I have no time to deal with unsourced and non-NPOV nonsense. It appears you are bothered with Spanish and English being at the top, but the only thing I can say to possibly justify this is that it is nothing but a result of an objective observation that there are literally more Spanish loanwords (probably also English but debatable) in Tagalog, and thus they are being treated here with the attention they deserve. It is not undue weight. And I am just scratching the surface of the many criticisms I have regarding whatever your plan is, but I believe other users in your talk page have already said what I wanted to say in the first place. Avoid your own biases and stick to the WP:BESTSOURCES. Also, read the Wikipedia guidelines as many fellow editors have already told you. Stricnina (talk) 22:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, I beg you to stop with the unnecessary historical excursus and detailed information like what you did with the Laguna Copperplate Inscription (which is bordering at WP:IRRELEVANT at worse). The history of the Philippines is already dealt in so many Wikipedia articles already and whatever historical information you are going to add here, they should be only used as explanations to the loanwords here. The rest of the unnecessary information should be spinned off and relocated to the more relevant Wikipedia articles. Stricnina (talk) 22:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I had already agrees to leave out anything unsoruced, because I had planned to find sources but could not find time to obtain sources. Hence, no further discussion was warranted really. Apologies, if you felt hurt, it was not my intention. I have amicably resolved all issues with anyone who left message on my talkpage. All editors have similar current and archived messages on their talkpage. We must not spin everything to other articles, it deprives articles of context. Wikipedia best practices mandate the inclusion of "context", "self descriptive headings", articles must be standalone and encyclopedic (not the index of non-standalone academic/journal articles). Since I had already agreed to the status quo "for now", hence some of the content and tone of your reply was not warranted. I have left a detailed message on your talkpage. Multiple valid ways to organise the TOC, I am okay with either while there is status quo, for now you can retain it the way you like it. Thank you. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

User talk:58.182.176.169 Sorry if you are getting agitated and thus resorting to projecting or writing long blocks of texts, but the WP:IRRELEVANT historical excursus and information will still be removed as I have explained earlier. Read the basic Wikipedia guidelines for more details. Also, if you keep adding non-NPOV and especially un-researched and unsourced information, they will be removed. Other users have already warned you. This is more for your sake. Stricnina (talk) 04:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced Tamil section

Tamil section is unsourced, with no context/history provided, Please take a look at these sources to start with.

• Tim Hoogervorst, 2005, is one of the most recent publication Detecting pre-modern lexical influence from South India in Maritime Southeast Asia
• Celine W M Arokiaswamy, 2000, Tamil influences in Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines (on google book), Hoogervorst mentions Arokiaswamy too.

I have put this on my to do list, I will help out later which might be a while. Meanwhile please use the above, as you deem fit, to address the citation issue, etc. Thanks. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Tables

I sometimes stumble upon this list and I'm seeing problems with style. There’s a whole lot of overcapitalization (compare tables in similar lists of loanwords), and where the meaning is of an animal or plant, both the common and scientific names appear where it is better to mention and/of link to just the common name where possible. @Stricnina: Time for a cleanup? TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 06:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

basura

Trash in Spanish. Jidanni (talk) 11:06, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

齒

伸牙/chûn-khì should use the above. Jidanni (talk) 12:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Arabic letters

When you say "ultimately from Arabic الخُرْشُوف" etc. be sure to include some romaniztion, so we can read their sounds. Jidanni (talk) 12:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Hokkien Loanwords source

Though the words in this section have a source (Chan-Yap, 1980), some of these have debatable origin. One example is katay, which may come from Proto-Austronesian instead. Words like patay, bitay and atay come from PAN *-aCay, which may also be the source of katay. Another example is lawlaw, which may come from Hokkien 落落 (to fall) instead of 老. Playervier (talk) 14:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Why the word Haba is a loanword from Japanese?

Is there anyone who can look or refer to why the word Haba is said to be a loanword from Japanese?

--Shimin_Ufesoj (🦜) 12:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)