Have you ever wondered about the two- and three-letter words acceptable in scrabble as approved by scrabble associations? (Well, I have, because I have been playing a lot of online scrabble with my Dungngo lately).
Have you also wondered about the unusual color terms (and what shade of color they are referring to?)
How about a listing of the lost English words?
Maybe you have, maybe you haven’t; I’m sharing what I’ve stumbled into, anyway. It’s a goldmine of information, if you ask me, especially if one is so inclined to learn about some not-so-common but interesting information about the English language.
Here’s a link to the website: http://phrontistery.info/
Direct links to some interesting information in the site:
Two- and three-letter scrabble words: http://phrontistery.info/scrabble3.html
Lost English words: http://phrontistery.info/clw.html
Obscure color terms: http://phrontistery.info/colours.html
Showing posts with label Language. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Language. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Thursday, August 09, 2007
A Lesson in Linguistics
Ever wondered what the meaning of chorva is? Let's ask Salve.
A CHORVA IN EVERYTHING
Like many others, I thought that the term “chorva” was just invented and added to the rich and still getting richer Pinoy gay lingo. It sounds funny and really gay. I remember using it in one of my IM conversations with a friend, and then she asked me what it means. I told her it’s a universal filler (I deduced my definition from how the term is used); when you don’t know the right term to use, “chorva” comes handy.I found out later on that “chorva” was coined from a foreign word and that my meaning is somehow true. The term comes from the Greek word cheorvamus, which means “for lack of the right word to say” or “in place of something you want to express but cannot verbalize.” Now I’m starting to believe that old man in My Big Fat Greek Wedding, that all words originated from Greek terms! I remember that character in the movie proving it to anyone-“Give me a word… any word, and I tell you, its come from Greek…”
“Chorva” is a very flexible term, too. It can function as noun (May bagong chorva sa tindahan.), verb (I-chorva mo na `yong narinig mo kanina!) or even as an adjective (Ang chorva naman ng mukha!).
So, if you find yourself at a loss for words when talking to your friends, classmates or in any informal conversation, try “chorva”! Who knows, it’s the term that will liven up a boring, rainy afternoon.
___________
Variants of “chorva” are churva, chorla, chuva, chuvanes. If you find other meaning or functions of the term, share it with me, too. CHORVA to us all!
This entry is ripped from Salve's blog. Here's the link: http://salvacion.wordpress.com/2007/08/08/chorva-in-everything/
A CHORVA IN EVERYTHING
Like many others, I thought that the term “chorva” was just invented and added to the rich and still getting richer Pinoy gay lingo. It sounds funny and really gay. I remember using it in one of my IM conversations with a friend, and then she asked me what it means. I told her it’s a universal filler (I deduced my definition from how the term is used); when you don’t know the right term to use, “chorva” comes handy.I found out later on that “chorva” was coined from a foreign word and that my meaning is somehow true. The term comes from the Greek word cheorvamus, which means “for lack of the right word to say” or “in place of something you want to express but cannot verbalize.” Now I’m starting to believe that old man in My Big Fat Greek Wedding, that all words originated from Greek terms! I remember that character in the movie proving it to anyone-“Give me a word… any word, and I tell you, its come from Greek…”
“Chorva” is a very flexible term, too. It can function as noun (May bagong chorva sa tindahan.), verb (I-chorva mo na `yong narinig mo kanina!) or even as an adjective (Ang chorva naman ng mukha!).
So, if you find yourself at a loss for words when talking to your friends, classmates or in any informal conversation, try “chorva”! Who knows, it’s the term that will liven up a boring, rainy afternoon.
___________
Variants of “chorva” are churva, chorla, chuva, chuvanes. If you find other meaning or functions of the term, share it with me, too. CHORVA to us all!
This entry is ripped from Salve's blog. Here's the link: http://salvacion.wordpress.com/2007/08/08/chorva-in-everything/
Friday, March 30, 2007
My mother tongue, poetry, and me...
I am now writing in Iluko.
It’s not much of a feat, really. For one, I still can’t say I’m already good at it. But still, I cannot help but be pleased with myself.
I have always longed for this moment… although at the back of my mind, I’ve always wondered if it would ever come, fearing all the time that it never will.
Thank God it did.
Now, the words come easier to me. It’s no longer like before when I would sit in front of my PC, willing my hands to tap the keyboard, and my mind to dictate the words of my native tongue, wishing Ilocano words to blink on my computer screen. But always, my attempts left me feeling frustrated. I always ended up writing in English.
Yet I still persevered.
Now, there are times when, even before I could set up my lap top, words are already bubbling in my mind, so that by the time I have opened my PC, my fingers are already itching to play with the key board. In fact, during the past weeks, I have created several Iluko poems.
That’s another thing. I am now writing poems. Had I not always said I don’t know how to write a poem? Had I not claimed before that I don’t appreciate poetry? How come I am now attempting to write in this genre?
I don’t know. I just do now… I mean, try. Of course, my outputs aren’t perfect yet. Some may just be quasi. But what the heck. I am teaching myself… I am exploring. I am trying different styles. Who knows, soon I may be able to find my own style. Who knows I may eventually learn to write real ones.
I wish… Or shall I say, I hope?
//One can easily point out that it’s not just now that I am writing poems… that I have pieces written even when I was in elementary. But I don’t know. It’s only now that I’ve come to truly appreciate poetry… and actually attempt to write real ones.
It’s not much of a feat, really. For one, I still can’t say I’m already good at it. But still, I cannot help but be pleased with myself.
I have always longed for this moment… although at the back of my mind, I’ve always wondered if it would ever come, fearing all the time that it never will.
Thank God it did.
Now, the words come easier to me. It’s no longer like before when I would sit in front of my PC, willing my hands to tap the keyboard, and my mind to dictate the words of my native tongue, wishing Ilocano words to blink on my computer screen. But always, my attempts left me feeling frustrated. I always ended up writing in English.
Yet I still persevered.
Now, there are times when, even before I could set up my lap top, words are already bubbling in my mind, so that by the time I have opened my PC, my fingers are already itching to play with the key board. In fact, during the past weeks, I have created several Iluko poems.
That’s another thing. I am now writing poems. Had I not always said I don’t know how to write a poem? Had I not claimed before that I don’t appreciate poetry? How come I am now attempting to write in this genre?
I don’t know. I just do now… I mean, try. Of course, my outputs aren’t perfect yet. Some may just be quasi. But what the heck. I am teaching myself… I am exploring. I am trying different styles. Who knows, soon I may be able to find my own style. Who knows I may eventually learn to write real ones.
I wish… Or shall I say, I hope?
//One can easily point out that it’s not just now that I am writing poems… that I have pieces written even when I was in elementary. But I don’t know. It’s only now that I’ve come to truly appreciate poetry… and actually attempt to write real ones.
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Truthiness: 2006 Merriam-Webster Word of the Year
The Merriam-Webster dictionary has announced the 2006 word of the year, and that is truthiness n., which may mean 1. "truth that comes from the gut, not books" (Stephen Colbert, Comedy Central's "The Colbert Report," October 2005); 2 : "the quality of preferring concepts or facts one wishes to be true, rather than concepts or facts known to be true" (American Dialect Society, January 2006).
Next to it is the word Google, vt, meaning “to use the Google search engine to obtain information about (as a person) on the World Wide Web.”
2005 word of the year: integrity
2004 word of the year: blog
For those who are interested to know how a word gets into Merriam-Webster dictionary, click here.
Next to it is the word Google, vt, meaning “to use the Google search engine to obtain information about (as a person) on the World Wide Web.”
2005 word of the year: integrity
2004 word of the year: blog
For those who are interested to know how a word gets into Merriam-Webster dictionary, click here.
Monday, October 23, 2006
Name Game: The Case of the Philippine National Language
Throughout the course of history, the Philippine national language changed its identity, not just once but twice. Originally, it was called “Tagalog.” Then it was renamed “Pilipino.” Now it is known as “Filipino.”
But why the name change? What was achieved by this “name game”? To answer these questions, let us explore the history of our national language.
Prior to 1935 Philippine Constitution
Prior to the promulgation of the 1935 Constitution, the official languages of the Philippines were English and Spanish (both non-Philippine languages). Quite remarkable is the fact that no Philippine language was of official standing — no legal standing in the courts, government transactions, education, commerce, and industry — during this period.
Language provision of the 1935 Philippine Constitution
Article XIII Section 3 (Pasimio, 1991:119)
The National Assembly shall take steps toward the development and adoption of a common language based on one of the existing native languages (emphasis mine). Until otherwise provided by law, English and Spanish shall continue as official languages.
In accordance with the provision on the Constitution, a body was formed “to make a general study of Philippine dialects (languages)1 for the purpose of evolving a common national language based on one of the existing native tongues and to recommend to the president of the Commonwealth (Manuel L. Quezon) its adoption as such” (SIL, 1971). This body was known as the Institute of National Language (INL).
A year after its creation, the INL recommended Tagalog as the basis of the national language from among the languages studied. This recommendation was based on (among other things) number of speakers and periodicals and the status of Tagalog as the language spoken in Manila — the most populous city in the country and the seat of government and major universities.
Studies conducted separately from, some even prior to, that of the INL showed that Tagalog had a great potential of becoming a national language. American linguist, Conant Everett Blake (Philippine literature p.457, 1908) had this to say about the Philippine languages:
Some persons, struck by the great resemblance which the various Philippine languages bear to one another, have thought that it would be possible to fuse these languages into one, but such an artificial scheme is certainly impracticable. If the Filipinos are destined ever to have a national language in which a national literature can be written, that language will most surely be Tagalog, the language of the capital city, a language admirably suited by the richness of form and its great flexibility for literary development, and needing but the master hand of some great native writer to make it realize its latent possibilities.
The Language Provision of the 1943 Philippine Constitution
Though it was claimed that Tagalog was simply the “basis” for the national language, there were manifestations that it was, indeed, the national language. Moreover, the Philippine Constitution under the Japanese government, in an attempt to erase Western influences in the country, named Tagalog as such.
Article IX Section 2 (Pasimio, 1991:156)
The government shall take steps toward the development and promotion of Tagalog which is the national language. (Translation mine. Please see the original Tagalog version in Pasimio, 1991:156 or refer to the footnote.)2
Problems with Tagalog
The choice of Tagalog as the basis of national language did not go unchallenged. In fact, this issue had divided the nation. Critics interpreted it as a form of discrimination against non-Tagalog speakers. Regional groups also contested the claim that Tagalog was the most widely spoken among the Philippine languages. They cited Cebuano as having the most number of speakers, with Tagalog coming only next.
Figures in the 1949 census showed that Cebuano indeed had more native speakers. However, Tagalog had both native and a significant number of nonnative speakers, making it the most widely spoken Philippine language.
Name Change: Tagalog to Pilipino
Realizing the division among ethnolinguistic groups caused by the adoption of Tagalog as national language, the name Tagalog was changed to Pilipino in 1959. However, this name change did not effectively eradicate the ethnolinguistic divide the choice of Tagalog as “basis” for the national language had created. To the contrary, this only heightened the tension. Different groups viewed this change as an attempt to mask the fact that both Tagalog and Pilipino referred to the same living language — Tagalog. Critics insisted that the only difference between Tagalog and Pilipino was sociological.
It then became apparent that more than just a name change was necessary.
Language Provision of the 1973 Philippine Constitution
Article XV Section 3 (Pasimio, 1991:273)
(2) The National Assembly shall take steps toward the development and formal adoption of a common national language to be known as Filipino.
(3) Until otherwise provided by law, English and Pilipino shall be the official languages.
Studying the provision closely, one might say that the Filipino mentioned in the Constitution that was to become the national language was still technically nonexistent and that it was not apparent what the basis of this language would be. Moreover, one might ask what to become of Pilipino, which, from being a national language, was appointed “official language.”
What is this Filipino being referred to? How is it similar to or different from Tagalog and Pilipino?
Even the language experts themselves had opposing views on what Filipino is. Some sectors believed that the Filipino mentioned in the Constitution was the purist Tagalog/Pilipino that was already in use while others believed that this Filipino was still to be created.
Those who believed that Filipino was still nonexistent were further divided into two groups: the group of Dr. Demetrio Quirino and that of Dr. Ernesto Constantino of the University of the Philippines.
Dr. Demetrio Quirino and his group proposed that this Filipino to be created be based on all the existing Philippine languages and that the percentage of contribution from each language be based on the number of speakers. They also proposed that complete amalgamation or mixing of linguistic components—phonology, morphology, syntax, and vocabulary—from these languages be applied and that only 30% of Tagalog elements shall make up the Filipino to be created. The remaining 70% shall come from all the other Philippine languages.
The group of Dr. Constantino, on the other hand, proposed using the universal approach. This approach means that the Filipino to be created shall be based on a national lingua franca plus other languages (multi-based). This is, in part, similar to the Filipino of Dr. Quirino except on the concept of complete amalgamation where the linguistic contribution of each language is determined by the number of speakers.
INL, however, denied the claims of different sectors that the Filipino being spoken of in the Constitution was the purist Tagalog/Pilipino or that it was still to be created. INL claimed that this Filipino was already in existence—that it was the Filipino that was based on Pilipino which, in turn, was based on Tagalog. It is “an evolution of Tagalog, a conglomeration of Philippine and nonnative languages.”
In his analysis of several issues on language development presented as appendix in the SWP 50th anniversary publication (1987), SWP Director Ponciano B.P. Pineda reiterated the institute’s stand against the Filipino proposed by Drs. Quirino and Constantino.
…the following questions arise: How much, and which parts of speech of a particular language should be taken? Must all the peculiarities of the sounds, stresses, and intonations in each language be included? Or must others be sacrificed for the preferred ones? Which of the opposing affixation systems—Tagalog, Cebuano, Ilokano, Pampango, for instance—should be adopted? …
Such kind of language has no root; no speech community to speak of. It has neither rhetoric (n)or idiom; no literature. Filipino born out of this system of language engineering has no culture. It is doomed to fail like Esperanto, Volapuk, and other artificial languages.
The Language Provision of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
Article XIV Section 6: (Pasimio, 1991:409)
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.
Apparently, the Constitution still had not exactly defined the Filipino which is now the national language of the country. However, the language committee of the Constitutional commission, during one of their sessions (September 10, 1986), made this definition:
“…the nucleus of the Filipino will be Pilipino with the mixture of words from other dialects and said Filipino language has already been existing as lingua franca… Filipino is the expansion of Pilipino and it is the lingua franca that has naturally evolved throughout the country, based on Tagalog and other Philippine languages and foreign languages.”
So what is Filipino? It is the Philippine language whose nucleus is Tagalog, characterized by massive borrowings of lexical items from Philippine and non-Philippine languages. It is different from Tagalog in that it is permeable to foreign words and from Taglish in that it follows the structure of Tagalog, its nucleus. Taglish, according to SWP and Linguistic Society of the Philippines, is merely a “variation” of (spoken) Filipino. [seb/2003]
Footnote
1 Though the words language and dialect are technically different, these terms are used interchangeably in this paper because some of the materials I directly quoted used these terms interchangeably.
2 Ang pamahalaan ay gagawa ng mga hakbanging tungo sa ikauunlad at ikalalaganap ng Tagalog na siyang wikang pambansa. (Pasimio:1991:156)
Bibliography
Books/Published Articles
Espiritu, Clemencia. Language Policies in the Philippines.
Pasimio, Renato R. 1991. The Philippine Constitution (Its Evolution and Development) and Political Science. Metro Manila: National Book Store, Inc.
Summer Institute of Linguistics. 1971. Fifty Most Frequently Asked Questions About the National Language.
Surian ng Wikang Pambansa. 1987. Limampung Taon ng SWP. Manila: SWP.
Unpublished Research Work
Benosa, Sherma E. and Mary Kathleen de Fiesta. 1997. Ang Nasyonal Langgwej (A paper submitted to the Department of Linguistics, UP Diliman in partial fulfillment of the requirements of Linguistics 130)
Decrees
Executive Order No. 136. 1937. Proclaiming the National Language of the Philippines Based on the “Tagalog” Language. (Manuel L. Quezon, President of the Philippines, Dated December 30, 1937).
Philippine Commonwealth Act No. 184. 1936. An Act to Establish a National Language Institute and Define its Powers and Duties. (First National Assembly, Special Session, November 30, 1936).
Copyright 2003 Sherma E Benosa
But why the name change? What was achieved by this “name game”? To answer these questions, let us explore the history of our national language.
Prior to 1935 Philippine Constitution
Prior to the promulgation of the 1935 Constitution, the official languages of the Philippines were English and Spanish (both non-Philippine languages). Quite remarkable is the fact that no Philippine language was of official standing — no legal standing in the courts, government transactions, education, commerce, and industry — during this period.
Language provision of the 1935 Philippine Constitution
Article XIII Section 3 (Pasimio, 1991:119)
The National Assembly shall take steps toward the development and adoption of a common language based on one of the existing native languages (emphasis mine). Until otherwise provided by law, English and Spanish shall continue as official languages.
In accordance with the provision on the Constitution, a body was formed “to make a general study of Philippine dialects (languages)1 for the purpose of evolving a common national language based on one of the existing native tongues and to recommend to the president of the Commonwealth (Manuel L. Quezon) its adoption as such” (SIL, 1971). This body was known as the Institute of National Language (INL).
A year after its creation, the INL recommended Tagalog as the basis of the national language from among the languages studied. This recommendation was based on (among other things) number of speakers and periodicals and the status of Tagalog as the language spoken in Manila — the most populous city in the country and the seat of government and major universities.
Studies conducted separately from, some even prior to, that of the INL showed that Tagalog had a great potential of becoming a national language. American linguist, Conant Everett Blake (Philippine literature p.457, 1908) had this to say about the Philippine languages:
Some persons, struck by the great resemblance which the various Philippine languages bear to one another, have thought that it would be possible to fuse these languages into one, but such an artificial scheme is certainly impracticable. If the Filipinos are destined ever to have a national language in which a national literature can be written, that language will most surely be Tagalog, the language of the capital city, a language admirably suited by the richness of form and its great flexibility for literary development, and needing but the master hand of some great native writer to make it realize its latent possibilities.
The Language Provision of the 1943 Philippine Constitution
Though it was claimed that Tagalog was simply the “basis” for the national language, there were manifestations that it was, indeed, the national language. Moreover, the Philippine Constitution under the Japanese government, in an attempt to erase Western influences in the country, named Tagalog as such.
Article IX Section 2 (Pasimio, 1991:156)
The government shall take steps toward the development and promotion of Tagalog which is the national language. (Translation mine. Please see the original Tagalog version in Pasimio, 1991:156 or refer to the footnote.)2
Problems with Tagalog
The choice of Tagalog as the basis of national language did not go unchallenged. In fact, this issue had divided the nation. Critics interpreted it as a form of discrimination against non-Tagalog speakers. Regional groups also contested the claim that Tagalog was the most widely spoken among the Philippine languages. They cited Cebuano as having the most number of speakers, with Tagalog coming only next.
Figures in the 1949 census showed that Cebuano indeed had more native speakers. However, Tagalog had both native and a significant number of nonnative speakers, making it the most widely spoken Philippine language.
Name Change: Tagalog to Pilipino
Realizing the division among ethnolinguistic groups caused by the adoption of Tagalog as national language, the name Tagalog was changed to Pilipino in 1959. However, this name change did not effectively eradicate the ethnolinguistic divide the choice of Tagalog as “basis” for the national language had created. To the contrary, this only heightened the tension. Different groups viewed this change as an attempt to mask the fact that both Tagalog and Pilipino referred to the same living language — Tagalog. Critics insisted that the only difference between Tagalog and Pilipino was sociological.
It then became apparent that more than just a name change was necessary.
Language Provision of the 1973 Philippine Constitution
Article XV Section 3 (Pasimio, 1991:273)
(2) The National Assembly shall take steps toward the development and formal adoption of a common national language to be known as Filipino.
(3) Until otherwise provided by law, English and Pilipino shall be the official languages.
Studying the provision closely, one might say that the Filipino mentioned in the Constitution that was to become the national language was still technically nonexistent and that it was not apparent what the basis of this language would be. Moreover, one might ask what to become of Pilipino, which, from being a national language, was appointed “official language.”
What is this Filipino being referred to? How is it similar to or different from Tagalog and Pilipino?
Even the language experts themselves had opposing views on what Filipino is. Some sectors believed that the Filipino mentioned in the Constitution was the purist Tagalog/Pilipino that was already in use while others believed that this Filipino was still to be created.
Those who believed that Filipino was still nonexistent were further divided into two groups: the group of Dr. Demetrio Quirino and that of Dr. Ernesto Constantino of the University of the Philippines.
Dr. Demetrio Quirino and his group proposed that this Filipino to be created be based on all the existing Philippine languages and that the percentage of contribution from each language be based on the number of speakers. They also proposed that complete amalgamation or mixing of linguistic components—phonology, morphology, syntax, and vocabulary—from these languages be applied and that only 30% of Tagalog elements shall make up the Filipino to be created. The remaining 70% shall come from all the other Philippine languages.
The group of Dr. Constantino, on the other hand, proposed using the universal approach. This approach means that the Filipino to be created shall be based on a national lingua franca plus other languages (multi-based). This is, in part, similar to the Filipino of Dr. Quirino except on the concept of complete amalgamation where the linguistic contribution of each language is determined by the number of speakers.
INL, however, denied the claims of different sectors that the Filipino being spoken of in the Constitution was the purist Tagalog/Pilipino or that it was still to be created. INL claimed that this Filipino was already in existence—that it was the Filipino that was based on Pilipino which, in turn, was based on Tagalog. It is “an evolution of Tagalog, a conglomeration of Philippine and nonnative languages.”
In his analysis of several issues on language development presented as appendix in the SWP 50th anniversary publication (1987), SWP Director Ponciano B.P. Pineda reiterated the institute’s stand against the Filipino proposed by Drs. Quirino and Constantino.
…the following questions arise: How much, and which parts of speech of a particular language should be taken? Must all the peculiarities of the sounds, stresses, and intonations in each language be included? Or must others be sacrificed for the preferred ones? Which of the opposing affixation systems—Tagalog, Cebuano, Ilokano, Pampango, for instance—should be adopted? …
Such kind of language has no root; no speech community to speak of. It has neither rhetoric (n)or idiom; no literature. Filipino born out of this system of language engineering has no culture. It is doomed to fail like Esperanto, Volapuk, and other artificial languages.
The Language Provision of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
Article XIV Section 6: (Pasimio, 1991:409)
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.
Apparently, the Constitution still had not exactly defined the Filipino which is now the national language of the country. However, the language committee of the Constitutional commission, during one of their sessions (September 10, 1986), made this definition:
“…the nucleus of the Filipino will be Pilipino with the mixture of words from other dialects and said Filipino language has already been existing as lingua franca… Filipino is the expansion of Pilipino and it is the lingua franca that has naturally evolved throughout the country, based on Tagalog and other Philippine languages and foreign languages.”
So what is Filipino? It is the Philippine language whose nucleus is Tagalog, characterized by massive borrowings of lexical items from Philippine and non-Philippine languages. It is different from Tagalog in that it is permeable to foreign words and from Taglish in that it follows the structure of Tagalog, its nucleus. Taglish, according to SWP and Linguistic Society of the Philippines, is merely a “variation” of (spoken) Filipino. [seb/2003]
Footnote
1 Though the words language and dialect are technically different, these terms are used interchangeably in this paper because some of the materials I directly quoted used these terms interchangeably.
2 Ang pamahalaan ay gagawa ng mga hakbanging tungo sa ikauunlad at ikalalaganap ng Tagalog na siyang wikang pambansa. (Pasimio:1991:156)
Bibliography
Books/Published Articles
Espiritu, Clemencia. Language Policies in the Philippines.
Pasimio, Renato R. 1991. The Philippine Constitution (Its Evolution and Development) and Political Science. Metro Manila: National Book Store, Inc.
Summer Institute of Linguistics. 1971. Fifty Most Frequently Asked Questions About the National Language.
Surian ng Wikang Pambansa. 1987. Limampung Taon ng SWP. Manila: SWP.
Unpublished Research Work
Benosa, Sherma E. and Mary Kathleen de Fiesta. 1997. Ang Nasyonal Langgwej (A paper submitted to the Department of Linguistics, UP Diliman in partial fulfillment of the requirements of Linguistics 130)
Decrees
Executive Order No. 136. 1937. Proclaiming the National Language of the Philippines Based on the “Tagalog” Language. (Manuel L. Quezon, President of the Philippines, Dated December 30, 1937).
Philippine Commonwealth Act No. 184. 1936. An Act to Establish a National Language Institute and Define its Powers and Duties. (First National Assembly, Special Session, November 30, 1936).
Copyright 2003 Sherma E Benosa
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Standardization of Iluko Spelling
I know this entry could get me shot and lambasted, because, for some reason, the topic is quite sensitive. I had considered keeping mum about it — I had thought it’s safer that way — but I eventually decided against staying silent, for to keep quiet when there is something that needs to be said is cowardice and, in some occasions, may be dangerous. As I am not a coward and, more importantly, because zipping up my lips would be an act unbecoming of a naturally talkative and opinionated person like myself, I am finally offering my humble opinion on the subject.
The issue I’m talking about is Iluko Standardization (spelling).
In my socio-linguistics class last semester, I proposed Iluko Standardization (spelling) as the focus of my research. I wanted to evaluate the orthography of different iluko publications, determine their differences, and hopefully recommend, based on some categories I would later design, which of these spelling systems could be used as standard.
By standard, I mean, the form to be adapted in publication and formal written communications. Designating a form as standard does not in any way mean that the other forms are “substandard” or inferior. It only means that the standard form is more widely used or accepted for business transactions and formal communications.
As the issue of spelling in any language is rather “hot,” I did not have a hard time convincing my professor of the merits of the study. And having been given the go signal to work on it, I embarked on researching the existing Iluko publications, with the help of my father. I had even asked Dad to help me set up appointments with the editors, some of whom he personally knew; and I likewise made preliminary arrangements in my schedule, in anticipation of several travels I thought I was going to make (to Regions 1, 2, and CAR) to meet with the editors.
My and my father's preliminary efforts, however, yielded the following information:
· Rimat, which spelled several words differently, had already folded up, enabling Bannawag to maintain its status as the most-read Iluko publication.
· Most, if not all, books published by GUMIL follow Bannawag spelling.
· A bible using Bannawag spelling is under way.
· The papers in NV (I didn’t get to check the Iluko papers in other Iluko-speaking provinces) are published and/or edited by Bannawag-influenced editors.
With this preliminary information, I went back to my professor and told him I needed to change my topic, because it was already a non-issue. I believe that there is already an established Iluko orthography — all but needing formal recognition — and that is Bannawag’s, whether we choose to accept it or not. This is because, where orthography is concerned, it is that form used by the widest circulating publication that prevails.
And while at first I was not quite happy with the situation — quite understandably, I hope — for, after a month of working on my research design, I suddenly found myself without a research problem (as my problem seemed no longer a problem), I think this scenario is actually good for the language, because it means Iluko has come a long way.
As for me, I’ve made another proposal, which luckily was approved outright. And that is, to find how different the Iluko spoken by the NOW generation is to that spoken by their parents and by their grandparents. I’ve noticed that there are forms used by older people that the younger people don’t know about (except those who write in Iluko).*
At first I wanted to do a study of the different forms used in different provinces (dialectal differences) but that is already dialectology, not a socio-linguistic study. Besides, that’s something I can’t finish in three months. Moreover, it would require funding, a lot of help (informants), and time — all of which I don't have at the moment. Sigh!
*[Case in point: My Iluko which, I think, belongs to the now generation (Manang Linda Lingbaoan calls it pop iluko). I find my Iluko very narabaw. This sometimes frustrates the struggling writer in me because I noticed that to many, the mark of a good Iluko work is the use of nauneg or old forms. Old iluko seems elegant. And while I sometimes strive to learn the old forms, the rebel in me resents it. The old form isn’t the Iluko that I grew up with. It’s not the Iluko that I speak. Hence, the moment I write using that form, my writing ceases to reflect me.]
Or may be I just don't have a good grasp of the language — that maybe I am one of those native speakers who somehow are not literate enough to write in their native language?
The issue I’m talking about is Iluko Standardization (spelling).
In my socio-linguistics class last semester, I proposed Iluko Standardization (spelling) as the focus of my research. I wanted to evaluate the orthography of different iluko publications, determine their differences, and hopefully recommend, based on some categories I would later design, which of these spelling systems could be used as standard.
By standard, I mean, the form to be adapted in publication and formal written communications. Designating a form as standard does not in any way mean that the other forms are “substandard” or inferior. It only means that the standard form is more widely used or accepted for business transactions and formal communications.
As the issue of spelling in any language is rather “hot,” I did not have a hard time convincing my professor of the merits of the study. And having been given the go signal to work on it, I embarked on researching the existing Iluko publications, with the help of my father. I had even asked Dad to help me set up appointments with the editors, some of whom he personally knew; and I likewise made preliminary arrangements in my schedule, in anticipation of several travels I thought I was going to make (to Regions 1, 2, and CAR) to meet with the editors.
My and my father's preliminary efforts, however, yielded the following information:
· Rimat, which spelled several words differently, had already folded up, enabling Bannawag to maintain its status as the most-read Iluko publication.
· Most, if not all, books published by GUMIL follow Bannawag spelling.
· A bible using Bannawag spelling is under way.
· The papers in NV (I didn’t get to check the Iluko papers in other Iluko-speaking provinces) are published and/or edited by Bannawag-influenced editors.
With this preliminary information, I went back to my professor and told him I needed to change my topic, because it was already a non-issue. I believe that there is already an established Iluko orthography — all but needing formal recognition — and that is Bannawag’s, whether we choose to accept it or not. This is because, where orthography is concerned, it is that form used by the widest circulating publication that prevails.
And while at first I was not quite happy with the situation — quite understandably, I hope — for, after a month of working on my research design, I suddenly found myself without a research problem (as my problem seemed no longer a problem), I think this scenario is actually good for the language, because it means Iluko has come a long way.
As for me, I’ve made another proposal, which luckily was approved outright. And that is, to find how different the Iluko spoken by the NOW generation is to that spoken by their parents and by their grandparents. I’ve noticed that there are forms used by older people that the younger people don’t know about (except those who write in Iluko).*
At first I wanted to do a study of the different forms used in different provinces (dialectal differences) but that is already dialectology, not a socio-linguistic study. Besides, that’s something I can’t finish in three months. Moreover, it would require funding, a lot of help (informants), and time — all of which I don't have at the moment. Sigh!
*[Case in point: My Iluko which, I think, belongs to the now generation (Manang Linda Lingbaoan calls it pop iluko). I find my Iluko very narabaw. This sometimes frustrates the struggling writer in me because I noticed that to many, the mark of a good Iluko work is the use of nauneg or old forms. Old iluko seems elegant. And while I sometimes strive to learn the old forms, the rebel in me resents it. The old form isn’t the Iluko that I grew up with. It’s not the Iluko that I speak. Hence, the moment I write using that form, my writing ceases to reflect me.]
Or may be I just don't have a good grasp of the language — that maybe I am one of those native speakers who somehow are not literate enough to write in their native language?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)