Talk:Cebuano language

hi musta

Verb aspects

I am not a Cebuano speaker, but I have learnt several foreign languages and have a good grasp of grammar (I hope!). The examples given in the section on aspects of verbs simply do not make sense. Perhaps it is the English translations which are incorrect. For example:

Examples of Incepting Aspect

Future actions The Festival was fun. The act has not happened yet; therefore it has not yet started: Alegre kaayo ang fiesta.

The Festival was fun is not a future action in English. This sentence refers to a completed past event. I have no idea whether the Cebuano translation is actually in the past or the future. Perhaps this section needs to be edited by someone bilingual, or with a sound knowledge of English grammar? Mike (talk) 07:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I am a native Visayan speaker, and I'm confused by this example too. Alegre kaayo ang fiesta. (which literally means The fiesta very fun. as opposed to Ang fiesta na alegre kaayo. - The very fun fiesta.) can be used for any kind of action. Be it future, past, or present. It uses no tense and thus means The fiesta is fun., The fiesta will be fun., or The fiesta was fun.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 05:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Come to think of it. I just realized most filipino languages do not have tenses of the 'be' verb. Instead we use suffixes and prefixes for verbs exclusively (like the English -ed). In order to show tense, there has to be a verb in the sentence. As such it is impossible to show tense in sentences composed purely of adjectives and nouns like the one above, unless the adjective can be turned into a verb or you add words denoting time.

Example: The adjective 'rich' becomes 'enrich'

English: He will be rich

Cebuano: Mudatu siya (literally 'Will+Enriched he/she' - 'He will be enriched.')

Example, adding reference to time:

English: He was rich

Cebuano: Datu siya sa una. (literally 'Rich he/she during once [upon a time]/beginning' - 'He was rich once.'), the time frame can also be replaced with other more specific words like gahapon ('yesterday'), ganina ('a moment ago'), ni-aging bulan(literally 'passed moon' - 'last month').

As opposed to when the adjective is not converted to a verb and there is no reference to time:

English: He is rich/He was rich/He will be rich

Cebuano: Datu siya. (literally 'He/she rich')

In which the sentence can be taken to mean past, future, or present action. In which case, it would then depend on context.-Obsidi♠n^Soul 15:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Whoever did the changes before, I am certain he was not conversant in Cebuano. He used non-verb sentence to demonstrate aspect, do not understand what is meant by habitual actions, and importantly do not use correct Cebuano syntax, -Gzosef walay Hanaw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.251.238 (talk) 20:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree that the aspects dont make any sense or are at least unclear. They aim to make clear the difference between past and present actions and then are followed by seemingly random sentences from which the non native speaker sort of has to distill what the essential difference is. He/She cant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.159.133.234 (talk) 00:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I am also Gzosef walay Hanaw. I will re-edit the verb segment of the article once we are complete with our problems in ceb.wikipedia.org

Josefwintzent Libot (talk) 10:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Classification

I am reverting the Cebuano classification back to "Austronesian, Malayo-Polynesian, Meso Philippine, Central Philippine, Bisayan, Cebuan", as it is found on ethnologue.com. If anyone disagrees, that is fine, but please cite your sources.

Why the accents?

Um... i am like cebuano, who speaks like a bit (but i am mestizo) and i can write in cebuano... and so can everyone in my filipino side of my family, and no one we know, wether cebuano or even tagalog uses accents when writing, so why do we add them when they are not nessisary? Because all the sounds of the vowels are the same no matter what word like napulu, you don't need the ú.Australian Jezza 23:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Um..like, um, like'um.... - - The purpose of the accents in Philippine languages is to specify the stressed vowels, the phonology, pronunciation and so on.. It is with accents that you are able to distinguish between 'Hapon' meaning 'Japanese' or 'Japan', and 'Hapon' meaning 'afternoon'..Si lapu lapu (talk) 00:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)Vlag

Accents in Philippine languages are different from accents in English. In English and other Indo-European languages, accents are stressed syllables. In Philippine languages, accents are lengthened syllables.

Seriously, they do the same with Russian- and Bulgarian-language samples, for educational purposes. In their respective Wikipedias, including that of the Cebuano, no one's forcing the editors to write with the accents. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.213.174.51 (talk) 11:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

i am Filipino- chinese- anlish, i don't live in the Philippines, i live in australiaAustralian Jezza 08:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I was surprised why there are accents in the words in the article. I am a Cebuano writer and I had never encountered accents in any of the local publications of the language. OTH, if this is used for purely educational purposes, it is fine with me. --210.213.141.12 12:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The comment above is mine. :) --Bentong Isles 12:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Accents are not used in written Cebuano (likewise with Tagalog). They are, however, useful aids for pronunciation for people who do not know the language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.203.191 (talk) 01:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

2 duhá

The latin word for (2 duhá) is duo.--Jondel 05:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Latin ultimately comes from Proto Indo-European, and some forms of Malay/Austronesian languages have elements of PIE, meaning somewhere they had a common ancestor. In Southeast Asia, most of it is from Sanskrit and Arabic. Visayan Tulo (three) is also very close to Latin Tres and Sanskrit Trayas.--Obsidi♠n^Soul06:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

espisyal (special)

i believe this word comes from the Castillian (Spanish) word especial, not special. Can anyone provide proof it didn't exist until the American colonization of the Philippines, if not I don't think this is a great example since there is some contention over which colonizer implanted this word into the Cebuano language. 201.21.96.49 07:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree espisyal is more likely to be spanish than english based, becuase of the es- part.Australian Jezza 08:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm a native Visayan speaker, I also speak tagalog and english, and yes I agree. However it should be noted that very few English words actually get adopted into filipino languages without being hispanized first. It's a quirk. 'Airplane' for example, while colloquially called 'Erpleyn' (or something like that, haha), by uneducated people is referred to as 'Eroplano' (or 'Aeroplano') more formally in Visayan. This applies to new English terms as well which did not exist back then. Like scientific fields - Neurology for example, noes not become Neurolodyi as expected but is hispanized first before being spelled in the Visayan way - Neurolohiya. The same thing happens in most other filipino languages.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 06:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

But that is not the case with espisyal. Words like Neurolohiya were borrowed in modern times and hispanized. Espisyal was borrowed from Spanish "especial". I am quite sure Filipinos in Rizal's time know and said the Spanish word especial (but pronouncing it our way). Neurolohiya, on the other hand, is not something that Filipinos in Spanish times would be using in regular conversation. Technical terms look awkward when borrowed from English, and are often "filipinized" by "hispanizing" them first. In the case of Eroplano, the original English word was Aeroplane, so it was easy to hispanize it to eroplano. Airplane is a newer word. In fact, "eroplano" probably pre-dated "airplane", since aeroplane was the accepted English word then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.201.129.73 (talk) 13:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

CFL

I didn't get to explain using the edit summary feature the edit that I made, which had to do mostly with this. Anyway I hope no one minds too much. --Pare Mo 08:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

IPA

Does anyone know the representative IPA for "Cebuano?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.203.191 (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

removed content: gane

1. gane: hearsay word, expresses the information in the sentence is second-hand; he said, she said, they said, it was said, allegedly, reportedly, supposedly.

The word gane, which means, “he said/she said/they said”, is sometimes joined to real translations of “he said/she said”, which is matud niya, and “they said”, which is matud nila. It is also joined to the Cebuano of “you said”, which is matud nimo. But this time, gane means “supposedly, reportedly, or allegedly.”

Matud niya gane.
He/she supposedly said.

Matud nila gane.
They supposedly said.

Matud nimo gane.
You supposedly said. Jordz (talk) 09:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Ausberg (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Just want to comment if the spelling "gane" is correct. In my opinion I prefer to spell it as "gani" which suggest with a strong accent. Ausberg (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

agree, we also pronounce it as 'ganì' out here (accent added to indicate glottal stop). But then again, Cebuano as spoken by actual Cebuanos is notoriously 'softer' and archaic.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 06:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Asa and hain

Moved this section to Cebuano grammar#Interrogative words. --Pare Mo (talk) 08:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Case Markers

Nipalit (a)ko ug isda sa taboan.

Gipalitan siya ug isda ni Pedro sa taboan.

With these in mind, where is this section talked about in the article??

ang, ug, sa

ang mga, ug mga, sa mga

ug and ug mga is equivalent to a or an and its plural equivalents of ...(pl)

Nipalit ko ug isda. I bought a fish. Nipalit ko ug mga isda. I bought fish(pl).

ug can also mean and..

Why is the ug marker not included?Si lapu lapu (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)si lapu lapu

Re: definite and indefinite

Which sentences sound right, and which sound wrong?

1. Magdala ang tawo sa bato.

2. Magdala ang tawo'g bato.

3. Dalahon sa tawo ang bato.

4. Ang tawo magdala sa bato.

5. Ang tawo magdala'g bato.

6. May tawo nga magdala ang bato.

7. May tawo nga magdala'g bato.

8. Bato ang gidala's tawo.

THANKS, Luther

Dear Luther,

All these sentences are correct. However I have some explainations on them.

Sentences 1 and 2 are both in the 2nd sentence type (non-equtional sentence) and differ only that in sentence 1 the object of the verb is a definite thing and in sentence 2 is an indefinite thing( actually the correct equivalent for the indefinite form is "sa usa ka bato" and the form used in sentence 2 is a unique characteristic on Philippine languages that has no English equivalent). The argument in the verb on both sentences is actor argument and in the durative configuration. This type of argument is similar to the English active voice.

Structurally speaking however sentence 1 has more segments (3 segments) than sentence 2 (2 segmants only). The segments are:

topic segment: Ang tawo coment segment: magdala / magdala og bato oblique segment: sa bato

Sentence 3 is similar to sentence 1 but this time it is in the direct object argument, volitive configuration. This argument is similar to the English passive voice. As you can see it here trans- argumentation from sentence 1 to 3 is posible but not with sentence 2. This is because og is not a case marker but a specifier. Also trans-argumentation requires a switch in function between the topic segment and one of the oblique segments. In the case of sentence two there is no oblique segment which makes tran-argumentation impossible. I only have recently discovered it and the similarity of og, nga, ka, and existential y in this respect. However a sentence with similar thought as in sentence 2 can be expressed by switching from non-equational to equational sentence.

Sentences 4 and 5 are just rearrangements of 1 and 2 so there is no need of discussing it. In fact Cebuano in this respect is similar to Latin in which each grammatical segments can appear anywhere in the sentence without any substantial change thought/context.

Sentences 6, 7 and 8 are sentence switch from 1 and 2. Sentence switch is not similar to trans-argumentation. In trans-argumentation the comment although undergoes change in conjugation, does not change function. In sentence swith the original comment might be promoted into a new topic or demoted just as a mere modifier of one of the segment.

Yours truly, Gzosef way Hanaw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.212.91.90 (talk) 01:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The 22 Arguments

examples are in the incepting aspect with hinlo` as the base word

	basic volitive	plural volitive	basic durative	plural durative
doer arguments	mohinlo`	manghinlo`	maghinlo`	manggihinlo`
mutant arguments	mahinlo`	mangahinlo`	magkahinlo`	manggikahinlo`
reciprocated arguments	-	-	maghininlo`ay	manggihininlo`ay
direct object arguments	hinlo`on	panghinlo`on	pagahinlo`on	pagapanghinlo`on
oblique arguments	hinlo`an	panghinlo`an	pagahinlo`an	pagapanghinlo`an
intrumentative arguments	ihinlo`	ipanghinlo`	igahinlo`	igapanghinlo`

-by Gzosef way Hanaw

Specifiers

I would like to know why my output on specifiers (nga, og, ka, y) is summarily deleted. 122.54.153.40 (talk)Gzosef way Hanaw —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC).

Indigenous terms

Please do not remove indigenous terms, as in this edit. Including such indigenous terms in an article about the language itself is encyclopedic and quite appropriate, and calling the inclusion of these terms POV, as in this edit summary, is highly inappropriate. Badagnani (talk) 07:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The terms are contradictory to making the article accessible to readers. Since the terms have English equivalents, I vote that the English equivalents be used. The indigenous terms further complicate the matter when the article should more salient.

If this were the Cebuano language version of the article, I would agree, however, this is the English version.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:JARGON#Foreign_terms

Joemaza (talk) 02:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Official language?

In the info box in the upper right, the article says "Official language in Regional language in the Philippines." To me this implies that Cebuano is an official language in Cebu or some other region or province. This implies that the Philippines is like many countries and has different official languages in differ provinces or political sub-groupings. But that is not the case, right? There are only two official language -- Filipino (Tagalog) and English. Is Cebuano an official official language anywhere? Is it taught in school? Used officially by schools or other government agencies? In other words, is it like Welsh in Wales or even Scottish Gaelic? --Bruce Hall (talk) 13:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

No it is not. Philippine law as of now does not define any official languages specific to Philippine regions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.29.112.174 (talk) 18:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

More history and context, and maybe less technical

This article seems to be mostly about the language from a technical perspective, so to speak, i.e. about grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation and the like. There is little about the history of the language or the cultural and historical significance of it. Where did it come from? Who speaks it? What are the political and cultural issues surrounding it? Etc. For general interest readers who have little to no interest in the details of the internal structure of the language -- in other words encyclopedia readers -- there is little information, I think. Perhaps expanding it would be in order. --Bruce Hall (talk) 13:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a format more like the one on Scottish Gaelic with separate articles on grammar and other issues, like Scottish Gaelic grammar and Scottish Gaelic orthography. Another example is Welsh language. --Bruce Hall (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

"tuba nio nipa" and "minumcubil" are more likely "tuba [ki]ni og nipa" and "moinom ko bi" as "tuba niyog" and "moinom tubig" are non-

logical and non-grammatical — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.190.129.165 (talk) 09:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Imperative

I don't speak Cebuano, but one of the examples of imperatives given seemed weird to me. The second example says: b) "Ako nang gi sugba." = I already grilled it. Now in English there is no way that that sentance could be imperative, it's giving information (indicative I would presume), is that different in Cebuano, or is the sentence just there to illustrate the difference between the two aspects? If it was just there as contrast, then that should probably be made clearer. thanks.130.216.234.97 (talk) 05:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Grammar on Cebuano

Ang Dila Natong Bisaya

http://archive.org/details/AngDilaNatongBisaya

Rajmaan (talk) 07:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Citations and sources are needed

A great deal of this article appears to be unsourced original research. As well, a large part of it seems to be a detailed grammar manual for the language, which is outside the scope of Wikipedia. But for now, I'll just concentrate on the lack of sources.

Editors have in the past challenged some of this unsourced material by adding ^{{{citation needed}}} tags in order to allow some time for sources to be added. After quite some time had passed and no editors located sources, some of the challenged material was removed. Recently, an editor has added back a very large amount of unsourced material, without adding the requested citations. I don't think that is quite right, so am bringing it to the Talk page to discuss here.

In my view, if citations are not added for challenged material, then after some reasonable period of time, the challenged material should be removed from the Wikipedia article mainspace, until such time as an editor or editors come along who choose to help make it explicitly verifiable. Does anyone have any special guidelines applicable to this article that might allow for unsourced material to stay in this article, beyond the ordinary Wikipedia policy for such? N2e (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

IMO, this article is an impressive labour of love. But I did delete copious amounts of text from an amazingly huge article, which largely seems to be a learning lesson. Wikipedia is not a Berlitz academy. The article's creator restored it and I didn't feel like pursuing it because frankly it's not an area of expertise of mine. All the Filipino languages will need to be treated equally, and like I said, this is not a Berlitz academy. Quis separabit? 03:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Much/most of what you deleted at one time has been added back to the article. Seems rather unencyclopedic to me to have so much Ceuano grammar details here. N2e (talk) 04:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Rms125a@hotmail.com, I have again removed the extensive and detailed section of the article on Grammar, per consensus. Apparent original research, and nearly no citations to sources.

It would probably be helpful for an editor to write a high-level summary of Cebuano grammar, based entirely on a reliable source, if such a source exists, and put a paragraph or two back into the article that avoids all the "grammar manual" aspects of the removed text. Cheers. 23:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Visayan languages which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Conflicting information about vowel /a/

/a/ an open front unrounded vowel similar to English "father".

But in the table immediately above it is identified as an "open central" vowel.

Which is correct? 69.42.17.116 (talk) 02:06, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, those claims are clearly inconsistent. However, the larger problem is that none of that appears to be sourced.

Without reliable sources, we really have no means of saying what, of any, of these statements are verifiable, and therefore, ought to be allowed in Wikipedia. I have challenged a few of those statements, so that a wider search for sources might be begun. N2e (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Language

Given that this is now the second largest Wikipedia by number of articles, it is probably appropriate to have the IPA pronunciation of the language itself on this page. English is generally ambiguous as to whether c is pronounced as an alveolar fricative or a velar stop. From the Cebu article, I gather that it is the former. 157.127.239.146 (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, now I see it in the info box. Can we put it inline with the article, as well, like Tagalog language? 157.127.239.146 (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

6000 years?

"Cebuano, or its ancestor language, has been spoken since the Proto-Austronesian era (c. 6000 years ago) in the Sugbu (Cebu) heartland" How is this possible? It only takes hundreds of years for languages to evolve or fork. For example, Latin was the language of the Roman empire just 2000 years ago, but it has now broken up into the Romance languages. 4000 years ago was when the Proto-Malayo-Polynesian (PMP) branch started to diverge, and it is unthinkable for Cebuano to already have its own branch then. Did Cebuano exist before PMP? It was only 1200 years ago when the ancestor of Meso-Philippine languages (Tagalog, Bikol, Proto-Visayan) and still a few centuries later did Proto-Visayan break up into Cebuano, Ilonggo, and Samar-Leyte. Cebuano as a distinct branch is only at most a thousand years old (though of course the language of a thousand years ago would be different from today), and the Tagalog branch is only about a couple of centuries older. Isn't this quote misleading? If it refers to Cebuano as part of Proto-Austronesian (PAN), then we can also say that the rest of the Philippines spoke PAN, since the movement of PAN is southward from Formosa. If it is trying to project glory on the Cebuano language, there are other ways to do it than misleading the reader into thinking that the language already existed 6000 years ago when it is in fact only a thousand years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.201.129.73 (talk) 13:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Possible new section

I think it is quite interesting that the Cebuano wikipedia is one of the largest Wikipedias, comparable to the English Wikipedia. Maybe this only warrants a sentence somewhere or a small section explaining it, but this is how I found this page, so I think it is warrented.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dheraj.G (talk • contribs) 13:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Old message, but this is because they did some testing of machine translations and used the Cebuano version as the test bed, pushing way more articles into the wiki than they have admins to monitor, to be honest. I read this in an article, can't remember when, but will post once I find it, just for historical reasons. If we are going to add a note about it (worthwhile) we need to make sure and qualify it with that information, as the huge numbers of articles are not due to a bunch of contributors, but instead, one with a bot. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Number of Native Speakers

Please update the number of native speakers of Cebuano/Binisaya, because 2010 is already outdated. Jumark27 (talk) 14:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mactan%E2%80%93Cebu_International_Airport 103.161.60.81 (talk) 10:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Move the numbers to the vocabulary section.

I already moved it but someone put it back as a separate section, including my added paragraphs. And also the loanwords section should be in the vocabulary and you don't have to enumerate them. 124.217.16.80 (talk) 12:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Name of language

Under §Nomenclature it’s explained how the Spanish word "Cebuano" come about. That’s good but not enough — it’s still necessary to explain how/why did it enter English unmodified and was not anglicized akin to, say, "German", which has analogous etymology. I know that’s because the U.S. took over as colonial rulers in 1898 (?) and at this time acquired toponyms were not being anglicized for a long time already (cp., say, "San Francisco" instead of "Saint Francis" or even "Detroit" instead of "Strait", but "New Orleans" not "Nouvelle Orleans"), but it’s worth a contextualizing sentence. Tuvalkin (talk) 08:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)