Where are the Linguists?

As I have written in my working paper, there are those who argue that Filipino is a separate language from Tagalog, i.e. Ernesto Constantino. I conclude that based on their assertions and my observations, Filipino and Tagalog are two different languages but still needs the verification from the linguists. I am forced to think that Nolasco was reacting to my essay when he delivered a lecture on the closing ceremony of the KWF program asserting thatTagalog and Filipino are one and the same language because of their mutual intelligibility. I should have cited this in my paper. Yes, I will in my third draft.

Mel may want to read Nolasco's conference address translated into English in Sonny Villafania's website.

Here are the pertinent excerpts:

"Are 'Tagalog,' 'Pilipino' and 'Filipino' different languages? No,they are mutually intelligible varieties, and therefore belong to one language. According to the KWF, Filipino is that speech variety spoken in Metro Manila and other urban centers where different ethnic groups meet. It is the most prestigious variety of Tagalog and the language used by the national mass media.

The other yardstick for distinguishing a language from a dialect is: different grammar, different language. 'Filipino', 'Pilipino' and 'Tagalog' share identical grammar. They have the same determiners (ang, ng and sa); the same personal pronouns (siya, ako,niya, kanila, etc); the same demonstrative pronouns (ito, iyan,doon, etc); the same linkers (na, at and ay); the same particles (na and pa); and the same verbal affixes -in, -an, i- and -um-. In short, same grammar, same language."

So Nolasco had spoken that Filipino is a "speech variety spoken inMetro Manila and other urban centers..." In short, Filipino as we have contended here is a dialect of Tagalog. Is Nolaco saying that our "national language" is mere "national dialect" of Tagalog? A fish is caught through its mouth, right? As I have posted here I will include a section in my paper dealing with this. A discussion on Nolasco's categorical statements will become a part of this section.

In the following section of my paper, I argued that Tagalog should stop being masqueraded as Filipino by returning to its former name in honor of its people. To stem the objections that may possibly arise from it, two other languages should be declared national languages along with Tagalog, that of Cebuano and Ilokano. I did not stop there recognizing the implicit difficulties that may arise from declaring these languages as national languages. In the last section, I advocated the recognition of the "other" languages as official languages in their respective localities. I compared Philippine and Indian language policies and found that India's language policy is superior respecting of its multilingual andmulticultural society, a model that we can emulate.

It would be better if a study done by a linguist should be able to answer Mel's question not just from the mouth of Nolasco although the latter himself is credible because he has a doctorate in linguistics. I am thinking of research titles like this: "Are Tagalog and Filipino Two Different Languages? Answers from a Linguistic Analysis" and "Is Filipino a dialect of Tagalog? Implications to the Language Policy." Perhaps a Master's thesis in linguistics would suffice or an MA seminar paper can also be a rewarding exercise. Both theses particularly the latter would surely provoke intrigue and debate and that someone would become an instant celebrity in Philippine linguistics. Who will give a try? Don't forget to contact me so that I could cite the theses in my paper, hopefully already published by that time but may revise it in lieu of the researches.

[Posted in DILA as message 18444 Nov. 3, 2007]