Talk:Baybayin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RA sound[edit]

Was RA really the same or considered the same as the DA sound in pre-Hispanic Tagalog?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jondel (talk • contribs) 05:06, 15 April 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert but I'm think pre-Hispanic Tagalogs don't distinguish between the /da/ and the /ra/ sound. This ambiguity even exists to this day. Dumaraan is the more correct form although dumadaan is acceptable. We also have dumarating instead of dumadating. Dito and rito are also equivalent. Some other examples: nagdadasal/nagdarasal, dinadagdag/dinaragdag, dumadagsa/dumaragsa. --seav 15:32, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

Tagalog letter ra (u+170d) has been encoded in Unicode 14! Baokhang48812002 (talk) 06:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Baybaying text support[edit]

Please who ever knows how to put the baybayin writing within this article please do it because there is no lettering, wikipedia can't support the baybayin text so it only shows boxes.Manager0916 (talk) 03:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the links at Baybayin#Font downloads. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Elrich Nelle Largo 49.149.66.186 (talk) 05:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2022[edit]

try just adding pictures, i'm sure i did that on a programming thing Xxdreamyyxx (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
this was twelve years ago- Xxdreamyyxx (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed renaming[edit]

The Tagalog alphabet is a better and more familiar name, I believe, then Baybayin; for instance, it's the Unicode designation. I propose to move this article. Evertype 10:55, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)

Baybayin or alibata is the term being used in the academe. Many Filipinos are familiar with this term. I think there is no such thing as Tagalog alphabet. Baybayin was used not only by the Tagalogs but other ethnic group as well. Although, the apperance and style differ from one group to another. The modern Philippine alphabet that is being used by all languages in the country is called Filipino alphabet, which uses the Latin letters. --Jojit fb 5 July 2005 05:32 (UTC)
I don't believe that is correct. The Philippine scripts include Tagalog, Tagbanwa, Buhud, and Hanunoo. I have more materials which use the term "Tagalog script" than "Baybayin". (I am fine with preferring "script" to "alphabet". This script was encoded in the Unicode Standard as Tagalog, and the experts who consulted with us did not prefer the term "Baybayin". Evertype July 5, 2005 15:27 (UTC)
Spaniards in the 16th century called it "Tagalog letters" even though it was used by other languages such as Ilokano and Bikolano. Baybayin was an old Tagalog term to refer to any writing system. On the other hand, alibata was a term used by Paul Versoza in 1939. In Philippine schools, alibata and baybayin are the most common terms used when referring to this script. Even in Google search, alibata and baybayin are more common than "Tagalog script" and "Tagalog alphabet". From the POV of Filipinos, they won't understand if you say the term "Tagalog script" or "Tagalog alphabet". They might confuse it with the modern Filipino alphabet. I might agree if we make a redirection pages for "Old Tagalog script" or "Old Tagalog alphabet" but the main article would still be "Baybayin". --Jojit fb 6 July 2005 05:19 (UTC)
Also, you may want to indicate in the article that some experts did not prefer the use of "Baybayin" as Unicode Standard. --Jojit fb 6 July 2005 05:29 (UTC)
Hmm, any links to that information "that some experts did not prefer the use of 'Baybayin' as Unicode Standard"?? --- Laibcoms (talk | Contribs) 08:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Evertype, it is correct. "Baybayin" is the name of our writing system or script. "Tagalog" is the name of the language and people living in the Tagalog region. "Tagbanwa, Buhid, and Hanunoo" scripts all came from the Baybayin script, you could say that it was a branched-evolution. "Baybayin" script is known to have been used to write in all (or most) Philippine Languages - Tagalog, Cebuano, Bikol, Ilokano, Kapampangan, and the list goes on. The first and only time that Baybayin was called the Tagalog Script was because of Unicode. Either we follow the non-Filipinos in this matter or we follow those very people whose roots came from it. --- Laibcoms (talk | Contribs) 08:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-Baybayin was only used by the Tagalogs, Kapampangans, and Ilokanos. Other ethnic groups used different writing systems. Baybayin, Tagbanwa, Buhid, and Hanunoo all came from the Kawi script.71.171.2.236 (talk) 10:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. "Baybayin" is the writing script. "Kapampangan", "Tagbanwa", "Hanunoo", "Buhid", and "Bisaya" are variations of "Baybayin". If you create a family-tree of it, Baybayin is the tree, all the rest are the branches. Call it the "Baybayin Family" to make it easy to understand. The UP guys (if I remember correctly) submitted "Tagalog" to the Unicode consortium to differentiate the "original/parent style" to its children like Hanunoo, Buhid, sulat Kapampangan, sulat Bisaya, and Tagbanwa. 222.127.223.70 (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Baybayin is similar to the Sanskrit in that there are different local/regional styles. A local/regional style doesn't stop being Sanskrit just because they added/changed something else. Baybayin is the same, the local/regional styles like sulat Kapampangan, sulat Bisaya, Hanunoo, Buhid, Tagbanwa, does not stop being Baybayin. These are still Baybayin, just a local/regional style. To avoid confusion, the people behind the submission of Baybayin to the Unicode consortium opted for the local/regional style-name hence, Tagalog script in Unicode. 222.127.223.70 (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with the argument presented that the International weighs more than the local. The International scene most of the time only relies on second and third and even fourth level sources. They want to write a book under the pretense of "keeping a record of things". They will use whatever term they want based on what they understood from their perspective. They first encountered the Baybayin Family when they landed in the Tagalog region, why? Because they know that for them to conquer Las Islas Filipinas, they need to control the heart of the islands - the Tagalog region, or as the Chinese recorded: Empire of Luzon. Now if you are going to keep arguing about the International terminology outweighing the correct and accurate name of the writing script, then you should know that the term Baybayin was actually coined by the Spanish conquerors. At the end, Baybayin still is the correct term because it has always been the International terminology for the Baybayin FAMILY. 222.127.223.70 (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree for the most part with Evertype, though I think at some time in the future, when published evidence becomes available, it would be preferable to rename the article "Philippine script" given the evidence that the Tagbanwa and Mangyan versions are for the most part angular, carved versions of the Doctrina Christiana letters and handwriting samples from the early 1600s. In the meantime, I think it's worth pointing out that exclusive use of the Tagalog terms "baybayin" and "kudlit" has the same effect as using the name "Tagalog script": it marginalises other terms such as the Bikol equivalents "basahan" and "kahulo'an". That said, the preponderance of the evidence does seem to point to the script first being adopted via Manila, the Tagalog-speaking main port of Luzon. Kiwehtin (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Transcription[edit]

The sample transcription of "Wikipedia" into Baybayin is wrong. It reads: "Wi Ki Pi Di A" with a glottal stop on the final syllable "A". The final syllable ought to be "Ya". Boreanesia 22:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tagalog script[edit]

The name Tagalog script is not' confined to the Unicode standard; it is quite common in materials in English and other languages (like Dutch for instance). In my opinion it is a more useful name than Baybayin or Alibata, both of which are "generic" terms which may have meaning to local speakers but have little international utility. The fact that the former means 'spelling' and the latter just 'alphabet' shows that they are generic terms. Whether the script is used for languages other than Tagalog is irrelevant; the Arabic script is used for Arabic, Persian, Urdu, Sindhi, Pashto, and many other languages. I find the reversion of my recent edit inappropriate, but thought I had better begin the discussion here. -- Evertype·✆ 18:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The languages used for a script is relevant since they show the script's history. I think the name Tagalog script is inaccurate since it might give the wrong impression that this script originated from Tagalog speakers. Unlike with the Arabic script and the Latin alphabet, both of which have evidence that suggest that they originated from Arabic speakers and Latin speakers respectively, there is no evidence that suggest that Baybayin originated from Tagalog speakers. For all we know the script might have originated from speakers of the Kinaray-a language. 23prootie 14:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops! I found a site that implies a Tagalog origin [1], but I guess to be fair to the other languges, I think the name should stay.23prootie 17:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the usual name for this script is Tagalog. I believe we should move this to Tagalog script; this term is not inaccurate. You have seen that it was first devised for that language; "fairness" to the other languages really isn't relevant. The most common English name should be preferred, not words in another language which mean 'spelling' or 'alphabet'. Can we agree? If not, I can propose the move and let the community decide. -- Evertype·✆ 10:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, as in my comment above, I mostly agree with Evertype, though most mentions I have seen in the literature seem to refer to the script(s) of the Philippines rather than Tagalog script as such. I should try tabulating this at some point. Bikol "basahan" 'reading' is as valid a term as Tagalog "baybayin" 'spelling' or in a more basic sense, 'setting out in sequence' and both are, as Evertype points out for the specifically Tagalog term, generic words (which apply to any script that has been used by people in the Philippines) and not a clear description of the script as such. A similar argument can be made against the often seen "Lontara" as a name for Buginese script: it just means 'palm leaf', on which Buginese and Makassarese documents were written before the advent of European paper. Kiwehtin (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's use Alibata because that is the term that everyone recognizes and is officially being taught in schools, universities and written in text books. Alibata unifies all. My vote goes to Alibata going by your and Evertype's argument. 222.127.223.70 (talk) 00:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SVG images[edit]

I made svg versions of the Baybayin letters. Let me know if they can be used in the article Commons:Category:Baybayin_letters

Syllabary, not Alphabet[edit]

This is not an area of expertise for me, but isn't Baybayin properly categorized as a Syllabary, not an Alphabet? Ditto Vatteluttu, which this article (mis?)categorizes as an alphabet. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its basic structural principles are the same as those of Indic scripts such as Devanagari, which are usually considered alphabets. To see what an undisputed syllabary looks like, go to katakana/hiragana. -- AnonMoos (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I had Hiragana and Katakana in mind as I wrote that. As I understand it, Baybayin, like both Hiragana and Katakana, uses each symbol to represent a spoken syllable rather than to represent an alphabetic letter as do, e.g., the English, Devanagari, Hangul Cryllic alphabets. My point was not related to the physical appearance of the symbols, it was whether individual symbols represent a syllable, as in a Syllabary or a letter, as in an Alphabet. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that's not really the case. In Indic-style alphabets (including Baybayin), the three syllables ta, te, and to will be written the same, except for different diacritics modifying the main symbol. In Japanese syllabaries, the three syllables ta, te, and to will be written with three completely distinct and separate symbols without any systematic resemblance. In a Japanese syllable-sign, there will be no part of the visual sign which can be identified as symbolizing the consonant sound, and no part of the visual sign which can be identified as symbolizing the following vowel sound. Instead the sign as an unanalyzable whole symbolizes the combination of consonant+vowel.
This distinction may not at first seem overwhelmingly important, but actually it's a difference in the basic nature of the two writing systems... AnonMoos (talk) 23:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I just took a look at Scott, William Henry (1984), "Chapter 2. Linguistics and Paleography", Prehispanic Source Materials for the study of Philippine History, New Day Publishers, ISBN 971-10-0226-4, which I happen to have handy. Scott says on pages 57-58 that babayin is one of about a dozen indigenous alphabets (he uses that word) which are derived from ancient India and share the characteristic of the Sanskrit alphabet (that link redirects to Sanskrit -- an article is needed there) that any consonant is pronounced with the vowel a following it, with diacritical marks being added to express other vowels. Scott's footnote 26 on page 146 says, "Since the procedure is called an alphabet when writing in Sanskrit, I am calling the baybayin an alphabet too, rather than a "syllabary". -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there isn't really any "Sanskrit alphabet" as such -- traditionally, Sanskrit was written with different local scripts in each of the different regions of India. Non-Indians learning Sanskrit usually encounter it in the Devanagari script (which is the local alphabet for Hindi). AnonMoos (talk) 12:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article "Abugida," where the Indic scripts are described as "abugidas" or "alphasyllabaries" -- neither alphabets nor syllabaries (in the hiragana or katakana sense)112.200.177.120 (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)dnong[reply]

Unfortunately, "abugida" and the rest are neologistic terminology invented in the 1990s -- and the idea of restricting the word "alphabet" to a very narrow and rigidly-defined meaning, in a way that was not done in past centuries, can be controversial... AnonMoos (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to delete the script examples[edit]

JL09 has twice deleted the re-spellings in the Tagalog script. Given the fact that this article is ABOUT the script, there seems little reason to support his deletions. -- Evertype·✆ 19:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changes need to bring this article up to "Good" quality[edit]

This article is rated as Start quality for both WikiProject Writing Systems and WikiProject Tambayan Philippines (see the top of this page). Many of the claims are unsubstantiated (and unsupported by most primary sources I am aware of) and most of the sources referred to are not primary, published sources whose claims have been subject to expert review. Other problems that keep this article two ranks below "Good" quality are the uneven, non-encyclopedic quality of the writing, and the lack of many important points that should be dealt with in an article on a writing system.

Examples of unsubstantiated claims:

1. The name. "Philippine script(s)", "Tagalog script", "Alibata", "Baybayin" and "Basahan" have all appeared in the literature. The etymologies for these terms should be explained clearly, including the earliest etymologies for "baybayin", before it came to have the meaning "spelling".

2. "Some have attributed it the name Alibata, but this name is incorrect."

The second part of this statement is an opinion, not a fact. A factual statement would simply mention that the name is not historically connected to this script, but instead refers to the first three letters of the current order of letters in the Arabic script.

The first part is a generic statement that avoids stating exactly who attributed the name Alibata to the script. A well-researched entry would of course attribute the statement directly to the primary source: Paul Verzosa in his "Pambangsang Wika ng Pilipinas".

3. The origin of the script. It is repeatedly stated as fact that the script is an offshoot of Kawi script. To my knowledge, at least six origin theories of near equal plausibility have been proposed in the published literature alone. No theory yet published has come close to making a good case for the likely origin of the script: as a result, no consensus exists on the origins of the script.

4. The earliest date at which the script was used. There are two claims in this article: (1) It "is believed to have been in use as early as the 14th century" and (2) "by at least the 1200s or 1300s, the characters found in Baybayin and related scripts came to be in regular use".

Neither of these is substantiated, and the only I am aware of from published sources comes from eyewitness accounts by early explorers that attest to its use in the early 1500s.

5. That "an earthenware burial jar found in Batangas" (commonly known as the "Calatagan Pot" uses Baybayin. It is clear that many of the characters inscribed around the neck of the pot are recognisable as being from the script, but it is not established whether the artifact is authentic, nor to my knowledge at least, whether the approximate date of the artifact has in fact been established. There are major difficulties with the way the characters are written on the artifact, and the lack of any obvious reading for the characters, that lead to suspicions about its authenticity. It cannot at this point be used as evidence for when the script might have been used prior to the first datable observations by early explorers.

6. "Kawi was also used in the Philippines on official documents such as the Laguna Copperplate Inscription" and similarly, "Kawi most likely continued to be used for official documents and writings by the ruling class in the Pre-Hispanic Philippines.". The LCI is the sole document yet known that is written in Kawi script and appears to originate in the Philippines. It is a reasonable guess that other documents (official or otherwise) may well also have been produced around that time, but their existence has not been established and cannot be claimed as fact unless there is some primary source that I am currently unaware of that establishes their existence. It is inappropriate to an encyclopedic article to insert a conjecture like that given in the second quote unless it is cited and attributed to a primary source.

7. With respect to Kawi and Baybayin, "many historians believe that they were used alongside each other". I have not, in my extensive consultation of primary sources, yet come across a single publication that makes this claim. The only evidence I am aware of for Kawi in the Philippines comes from the Laguna Copperplate Inscription, which bears a date equivalent to the year 900 CE, and an inscription on a rhinoceros horn seal (undated) from Butuan (see point below).

8. Again, with respect to Kawi and Baybayin, "Baybayin was simpler and easier to learn, but Kawi was more advanced and better suited for concise writing". This quote is lifted, word for word and without attribution, directly from Paul Morrow's Baybayin site ([2]), which itself is not a primary source. The statement as such is an opinion: no criteria are proposed for why Baybayin would be "simpler and easier to learn" nor why Kawi would be "more advanced and better suited for concise writing". An encyclopedic article must limit itself to stating the facts about the structure of each script and what in what ways it represents or fails to represent aspects of the phonological structure of the spoken languages it is used to write.

9. "The [vowel] mark is called a kudlit." No source is given for this. It is available, among other places at Paul Morrow's site, a secondary source; there, he also refers to the Bikol term kahulowan [sic] (and gives primary references substantiating this fact and all others he places on his site).

10. "This method, however, was particularly difficult for the Spanish priests who were translating books into the native language." If this is referred to as fact somewhere in the primary literature, the source needs to be documented.

11. "Baybayin historically was used in Tagalog and to a lesser extent Kapampangan speaking areas" and "Its use was mainly restricted to those areas, though many incorrectly claim that it was used by a wider range Filipino ethnolinguistic groups, which actually used closely related (yet still distinct) writing systems such as Hanunóo, Buhid, and Tagbanwa." The two statements in general are not substantiated; the second statement is an opinion, not a fact. Primary published sources and, indeed, secondary sources on the web, contain numerous citations from early witnesses of the script's use throughout Luzon, the Visayas, and Mindanao. If the question whether Tagbanuwa and Mangyan scripts are actually distinct or varieties of a single Philippine script has actually been demonstrated in the published literature, as opposed to being a simple conventional opinion, the relevant source (if it exists) should be cited for the specific supporting details.

12. "The only Pre-Hispanic script that can be applied on a national level would be Kawi." This is an opinion, unsubstantiated, and relies on previous unsubstantiated opinions for its support. See points 6, 7 and 11.

13. That the rhinoceros horn seal found in Butuan is written partly in Kawi - with vowel marks worn off -, and in Baybayin - again with vowel marks worn off. This is unsupported. It originates in a conjecture on Hector Santos' "A Philippine Leaf" website ([www.bibingka.com/dahon/mystery/seal.htm]) that is dressed up here as fact. I have not yet found any primary sources that deal specifically with the reading of the inscription on the seal; however, Santos' citation of the opinion of Antoon Postma (who published the academic paper transcribing and translating the Laguna Copperplate Inscription) can be taken as a citation of expert opinion. Careful comparison with modern-day Kawi-based Javanese/Balinese and Sundanese scripts and numerous samples of Kawi variants in Holle's _Tabel van Oud- en Nieuw-Indische Alphabetten_ shows that all the characters are clearly Kawi (including the U vowel marker, the subscript conjunct B and the final curling Virama sign (which Postma in fact imported into the Hanuno'o variety of Philippine script as the "Pamudpód"). The only ambiguous character in Postma's opinion- as alluded to in Santos' citation - is the initial one, most likely B but possibly P, and there exists a slight possibility that the final consonant is D rather than N. The claim given here is unsubstantiated and, since no primary source appears to exist, unsubstantiable.

14. "The Laguna Copperplate Inscription, written using the Kawi script in Old Tagalog, with heavy Old Javanese, Old Malay and Sanskrit influence". This is unsubstantiated. The only primary source extant is Postma's original article, which shows pretty clearly that the first segment of the inscription is in Sanskrit, the main body in Old Malay with Sanskrit loanwords and several words atypical of Malay which could be either Old Javanese OR Old Tagalog. Postma's well-documented conclusions have not been challenged in the published literature and no plausible arguments have been published in any primary source that would challenge Postma's clearly supported demonstration that the language of the body of the text is Old Malay.

The article also needs more attention to some specific points. A summary of important areas to cover is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Writing_systems. Several of these points need much more attention, including:

1. The various orders for the letters, beginning with the first attested order found in the Doctrina Christiana, then the "a ba ca da" order used by Spanish observers, based on the order of the Latin alphabet equivalents of the Philippine letters.

2. A well-organised chart, with the consonants and diacritics clearly explained.

3. Clear explanations of the names for the script, the letters, and the diacritics in the languages for which sources exist.

4. Specific information about different styles. Most important here is a description of the earliest attestation of the script, which appears in the _Doctrina Christiana_ (1593), then a comparison with the handwriting variants found in two land deeds reproduced in Villamor's _La Antigua Escritura Filipina_ as well as signatures reproduced in the same source, in Potet's "La pétition tagale 'Caming manga alipin'" and in Scott's _Prehispanic Source Materials for the Study of Philippine History_, and a comparison with modern bamboo handwriting variants from Mindoro and Palawan. The development of printing typefaces, starting with the _Doctrina_ characters and Lopez' reinterpretation thereof, is important due to differences with authentic examples of handwriting. The near exclusive attention paid to the printing variants to the total exclusion of handwriting (which are the basic form in any script) creates a misleading impression that Mangyan and Tagbanuwa variants are distinct from the usual Luzon-Bisayas letter forms. This leads to the current opinion (likely erroneous) that the Mangyan and Tagbanuwa variants are separate scripts.

5. Of secondary interest, but nonetheless worth discussing separately under "Usage", is the modern day development of new typefaces as part of a cultural revival of the script.

6. It would be useful - again under "Usage" - to discuss various proposals that have been put forth to reform the script, from Lopez' addition of a Virama (and Postma's similar, more recent addition to the Hanuno'o variety of the script) through Verzosa's borrowing of the Batak/Bugis R letter to Bayani de Mendoza's more recent and ambitious additions to the script.

7. For the discussion of the origins and history of the script to be of any quality, it must be completely rewritten, citing all the primary sources (which are easily available) with their diversity of opinions on likely possible origins for the script. (To list them: Kawi, Old Assamese pre-Nagari script introduced via Bengal, an indigenous origin, an ultimate origin in old Sumatran "Malay" scripts, the Buginese and/or Makassarese scripts of Sulawesi, early Cham script from Champa in what is now southern Vietnam and southeastern Cambodia.) In addition, any claims regarding the use of Kawi must be limited to the two known and substantiated examples: the Laguna Copperplate Inscription and the rhinoceros horn seal from Butuan. None of the other claims regarding Kawi in the current version can be substantiated in any way on the basis of the existing literature.

8. The fact that the two samples of writing in the script are both in Tagalog, but not identified as such. They could be supplemented with or replaced by actual excerpts from the 1593 _Doctrina Christiana_ and one of (1613 and 1615) land deeds published in Villamor (cited above).

9. The introduction should distinguish the two main ways the script can be written: with and without the Virama. The transcriptions can be quite different depending on the choice made and neither can be claimed to be the only legitimate or authentic system. (See point 6 above).

10. Accurate IPA representations should be added for the pronunciation of each Tagalog or Bikol term (and any others that might be added from other languages later on). This includes IPA transcriptions for the terms "baybayín", "basahan", "alîbatá", "titik", "guhit", "kudlít" and "kahulo'an".

Much work remains to be done (and much damage undone) to bring this article up to the level of even a "Good" rating. My first impulse is to start from scratch and write a completely new article, which should be under a more accurately descriptive name in any case. However, that would lead to conflict with the existing article. I would appreciate feedback from other users on ways we can bring the quality of the article in line with the Wikipedia guidelines. Although given enough time and patience, I could re-edit the whole existing article with this aim in mind, it would be preferable if a group of us could do so, consulting the reputable sources that are widely available and improving the quality of the claims made here on that basis.

I would appreciate feedback on this before I try to undertake the task myself. (A note: I have not given full references for sources at this point, my intent being to point out the weaknesses of the current content of the article rather than to begin the task of writing up and documenting actual admissible content. Kiwehtin (talk) 00:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Well I've given it an initial going-over, but there's still a long way to go. I removed many of the spurious claims from the text, and tried to create slightly better sections and at least begin the process of fixing this up. 12.172.207.3 (talk) 18:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--- I agree with many points by Kiwehtin on the doubtful quality of the article, but removing such a widely-known example such as the "Calatagan Pot" which is still in the Philippine National Museum, still considered a national treasure and currently being given contemporary consideration by serious scholars (anthropologists, archeologists etc.) working in the field in a scientific and rigorous way is unwarranted. To eliminate this would be to claim "original research" that debunks the work of specialists. But where has this "original research" been published? Wiki is not a venue for this as we all know. Wiki is just a venue for reporting the history and the state of the art of the topic and its sources must stay close to academic works in academic publications in the Philippines or ,this article in particular, risks becoming the domain of cranks (of which this field is rife). Refereed books and journal articles published in the Philippines and possibly elsewhere (there are very few non-Philippine studies on baybayin which actually contribute anything new to the discussion probably due to the lack of knowledge of the writers on Philippine languages) constitutes the only rational criterion for the "actual admissible content" of this article.

Response to the previous unsigned posting[edit]

The anonymous contributor of the previous discussion entry (recorded as IP address 119.230.13.87) has misunderstood my point with regard to the "Calatagan Pot". I did not advocate removing any reference to the inscription. I simply pointed out the problems with this pot and their implications for what can be claimed about Baybayin. There have been four attempts (to my knowledge) at assigning values to the characters on the pot since the 1970s (Francisco's Philippine Palaeography, Potet's 1983 PhD thesis Morphologie du Philippin, Guillermo and Paluga's 2008/2009 "Barang King Banga: Isang eksperimental na pagbasang Bisaya sa inskripsyon sa Banga ng Calatagan" and Oropilla y Fortich's (2010?) Deciphered Secrets: The Calatagan Pot Inscription as well as three attempts to assign a meaningful reading to the sequence of characters on the pot (Francisco, Guillermo-Paluga, Oropilla, and the reading allegedly revealed in seance by the sculptor Tolentino).

Because of the ambiguity of the inscribed characters, the direction in which the sequence may be intended to be read, and the apparent 180º upside-down rotation of many of the characters contributing to the unclearness of possible readings, there is only partial agreement between those who have attempted to figure out the inscription. This, the fact that there is no clear and plausible dating for the pot (see Francisco on this), and the fact that it was sold to archaeologists by treasure hunters in the area rather than excavated under controlled conditions, precludes any claim that this is established as an early Baybayin artefact. It can be discussed as an example of a mysterious item of unknown date bearing inscriptions that resemble Baybayin to a greater or lesser degree, with a discussion of the scholarly conclusions and disagreements surrounding the item, but no more can be said about it in connection with Baybayin. Doing this is not attempting "new original research" nor attempting to debunk the work of those who have attempted to make some sense of the artefact.

The anonymous poster appears unfamiliar with the fairly extensive original literature on Baybayin. Most of the earlier work was written by authors from Spain (in particular, example "alphabets" for different regions), France, Germany and by the Dutch linguist Hendrik Kern, who originated the Kawi origin theory. More recently, extensive and well-documented studies were written by the Spaniard Marcilla y Martin (Estudio de los antiguos alfabetos filipinos, 1895), the Austrians (Germans?) Mayer, Schadenberg and Foy ("Die Mangianenschrift von Mindoro", 1895); and in the Philippines, Ignacio Villamor's 1922 La antigua escritura filipina/The Ancient Filipino Writing and Alberto Santamaría's 1938 "El 'Baybayin' en el archivo de Santo Tomás" are the first and highly important introductions to actual Baybayin handwriting as opposed to printed typefaces and the early second hand sample "alphabets" reproduced with greater or lesser accuracy. The most important and extensive example of early Baybayin was edited and published in 1947 by the American Edwin Wolf: Doctrina Christiana. The First Book Printed in the Philippines.

These publications have been supplemented by numerous samples of Baybayin handwriting from other archival sources gathered and distributed informally by Antoon Postma over the past decades, but as yet unpublished, and the French Philippinologist Potet's 1987 "La pétition tagale Caming manga alipin" (and Potet's evaluations and decipherments of many of Postma's samples). Important work on Mangyan script was published both by Postma (a Dutch-Filipino dual national) and before him, the Americans Kroeber and Gardner. More recent important work on understanding the nature and origins of Baybayin appears in the 1984 Prehispanic Source Materials for the Study of Philippine History by William Scott, an American working in the Philippines, and yet more recently the well documented though somewhat inconclusive 1993 "On the Possible Cham Origin of the Philippine Scripts" was written by the Australian Geoff Wade. And of course, the most important recent overview of Baybayin is the carefully documented and well written Internet website maintained by Paul Morrow in Winnipeg, Canada.

Much of the remaining work on Baybayin originating in the Philippines during the past century or so has been devoted to proposals for expanding and adapting the script for writing the modern languages of the Philippines, with their heavy influence from Spanish and English. This includes Villamor, Verzosa's Pambansang Titik ng Pilipinas, Mendoza de Leon's 1992 Baybayin. The Ancient Script of the Philippines and Pangilinan's 2010 modern reconstruction of a Kapampangan version of Baybayin, "Assessing the current status of the Kapampangan 'pre-Hispanic' script". Cervo's 1978/1982 Another Look at Tagalog speculates about possible origins of the shapes of Baybayin letters in movements of the mouth and jaw, but shows an embarrassing ignorance of even the most basic concepts of articulatory phonetics and cannot be considered scientific literature; similar criticisms apply to the speculations made therein about the origins of Tagalog vocabulary.

I disagree strongly with the previous commenter's claim that only work from the Philippines should be considered as reliable or as having made worthwhile contributions to our knowledge about the script. The scientific value of a piece of work depends not on who authors it or where it was authored, but on the soundness of the factual evidence presented and the logical quality of the arguments. That is all. As is true for work in all areas of science, much of the valuable work on this script has been published outside the Philippines and that a publication originates inside the Philippines is no guarantee of its quality. Almost all the high quality published sources I have mentioned above are easily available either online or through libraries and should be consulted and cited in any well written Wikipedia entry on Baybayin. 65.94.168.242 (talk) 00:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You write too long, always remember it is very rare that someone will read long comments. If it was an encyclopedic article they will read. Back on topic, call it Baybayin Family to end the debate. As far as current research, history, discoveries, and understanding are concerned, the term Baybayin is the same as the term Sanskrit. The writing script have different local/regional variations but are generally called as Sanskrit. Baybayin is just that - a (family) writing script. In Unicode, it is called Tagalog and not Baybayin because the group that submitted it also submitted scripts for Hanunoo, Buhid, and Tagbanwa. It is only proper and correct to use Tagalog and not Baybayin to avoid confusion and redundancy.
Because the Baybayin scripts in Unicode are of the variation-level, we can later submit sulat Kapampangan and sulat Bisaya too. Baybayin is the correct and most accurate term to use, it refers to the family of scripts used within the Philippine Islands. All variations originated from the Tagalog variation (parent). The Spanish conquerors of the Philippines actually was the one who coined the term Baybayin.
Also, should we wait for someone to write a new book based on the latest findings? Wikipedia has positioned itself to be the "authority" in research which it should not be. Keeping the information overtly too restricted to existing and too old, not updated sources will only add to the growing misinformation and confusion about Baybayin. Is not Wikipedia aiming to help and provide the most accurate and updated information?
Use Baybayin Family as the article title and URL, end this name debate and let's go back to building the article. 222.127.223.70 (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The previous comment makes several incorrect statements about Baybayin's status as a script, the origin of its name, and what "Sanskrit" refers to. Baybayin is a single script, like Latin, Arabic or Devanagari in all their variations are single scripts. It is most definitely not a group or family of scripts; no separate "Sulat Bisaya" ever existed, and authentic Kapampangan script was merely the most notable regional variant of Baybayin. There were no special regional variations despite the false impression given by inaccurately wirtten samples of Baybayin from various regions as written by foreigners not used to writing the letters correctly. Scott, Villamor and especially Santamaría have shown clearly that the handwriting of different people in the same region, even from the same document, shows moer differences than the so-called "regional scripts" written in distorted handwriting by foreigners. Modern "Kulitan" or "Súlat Kapampangan" is the recent invention of one person who took a 19th century French visitor's interpretation of Baybayin letters as written in an unknown source or sources from Pampanga, and combined these with a structure derived from a combination of Kawi and Korean Han'gul. It is a modern constructed script with no relation to how it was actually written when it was used as part of daily life. The name Baybayin originated with Tagalog speakers, not the Spanish, who at first just called it "sus letras" (their letters). Baybayin comes from a word that originally meant to put things in a sequence or a particular order. Sanskrit is a language, not a script or group of scripts. All these facts can be checked in the existing literature. Anyone who wants to write an accurate article should consult at the very least Paul Morrow's web site "Ang Baybayin", Santamaría's "El "Baybayin" en el archivo de Santo Tomas", Villamor's "The Old Philippine Writing/La Antigua Escritura Filipina", and Marcilla y Martín's "Estudio de los Antiguos Alfabetos Filipinos". Kiwehtin (talk) 04:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with opening section[edit]

The following is an extract from the first section:

Some have attributed it the name Alibata,[3] but this name is incorrect. (The term "Alibata" was coined by Paul Rodríguez Verzosa after the arrangement of letters of the Arabic alphabet[4] alif, ba, ta (alibata), “f” having been eliminated for euphony's sake." ) Verzosa's reasoning for creating this word was unfounded because no evidence of the Baybayin was ever found in that part of the Philippines and it has absolutely no relationship to the Arabic language. Furthermore, no ancient script native to Southeast Asia followed the Arabic arrangement of letters, and regardless of Verzosa's connection to the word alibata, its absence from all historical records indicates that it is a totally modern creation. The present author does not use this word in reference to any ancient Philippine script.

The style of the writing, and especially the final sentence, gives me the very strong impression that this is copied directly from a book. As a bit of googling shows, everything from "Verzosa's reasoning" is copied directly from http://www.mts.net/~pmorrow/bayeng1.htm, which is blatant copyvio. I am therefore removing it.

There's also a broken quote (a closing quote but no opening quote), and the information about creation of "alibata" seems to me to be in the wrong place (I'd have moved it even if it wasn't copyvio). Finally, "this name is incorrect" seems dodgy (though I don't have any knowledge of the subject) because if any significant use is made of it, it's a name. Whether or not it's indigenous, traditional, approved by scholars or anything else is largely irrelevant, as long as it's in use. Obviously if not then it doesn't need to be there, but someone's provided a source that looks okay at a glance. -- Shimmin Beg (talk) 21:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tagalog "Baybayin" is NOT KAPAMPANGAN, nor is it the other scripts[edit]

Hey "Kiwehtin", if you don't mind, educate yourself first before reversing my edits, as well as read what I wrote in the history, it isn't Kapampangan. If you want the Kapampangan script, create an article on the script referred to as "Kulitan"(not to be confused with the tagalog term). As well as for the other ethnic group's respective scripts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.82.28 (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I don't think you need to worry about whether I have educated myself on the matter. I have done most of the original research on the topic in the past half decade and have uncovered various details about the Philippine script and its varieties that were previously unknown. The references in the article to the fact that the UST archives have the largest collection anywhere of documents with Baybayin are based on my invited keynote talk at the UST 400th anniversary conference in December 2011, where I presented my work on the UST archives Baybayin, showing how the script changed through time over the 1600s, among other things. During the same week, I visited the Manila Archdiocesan Archives in Intramuros and was able to copy three original Kapampangan-variety signatures (along with 14 "standard" Baybayin signatures) from an early 17th-century document. Those signatures confirmed my observations of special spelling innovations (and special letter shapes not shown in the early Spanish reproductions of "Pampanga alphabet" samples) that also appear in two old documents that Antoon Postma has copies of. These are not the same as modern "kulitan", which is fundamentally different in several ways. That said, it is clear that Kapampangans had begun innovating in certain ways that we don't find elsewhere in Philippine script varieties. Kiwehtin (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Free Picture of the Lord's Prayer in Baybayin Visayan (Bisaya)[edit]

the image is public domain and can be uploaded

http://books.google.com/books?id=uUhiAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA361#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 06:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

can you even read this?

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

ᜀᜅ᜔ ᜎᜑᜆ᜔ ᜈᜅ᜔ ᜆᜂ ᜀᜌ᜔ ᜁᜐᜒᜈᜒᜎᜅ᜔ ᜈ ᜋᜎᜌ ᜀᜆ᜔ ᜉᜈ᜔ᜆᜌ᜔ᜉᜈ᜔ᜆᜌ᜔ ᜐ ᜃᜍᜅᜎᜈ᜔ ᜀᜆ᜔ ᜃᜍᜉᜆᜈ᜔‖ ᜐᜒᜎ ᜀᜌ᜔ ᜉᜒᜈᜄ᜔ᜃᜎᜓᜂᜊᜈ᜔ ᜈᜅ᜔ ᜊᜓᜇ᜔ᜑᜒ ᜀᜆ᜔ ᜇᜉᜆ᜔ ᜋᜄ᜔ᜉᜎᜄᜌᜈ᜔ ᜀᜅ᜔ ᜁᜐᜆ᜔ᜁᜐ ᜐ ᜇᜒᜏ ᜈᜅ᜔ ᜉᜄ᜔ᜃᜃᜉᜆᜒᜍᜈ᜔‖

Someone should just make a picture out of it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.151.11.64 (talk) 12:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Possible earlier occurrence" section looks dubious[edit]

The article cited as the source for the section is slanted toward hyping the lecturer and his rather dubious claims that, among other things, the markings on the Manunggul Jar are Baybayin writing, that the letters were copied from various features of the Giant clam, and that they have some kind of "inherent subtle energies": "He showed two pictures of plants of the same kind, one grew way taller and healthier than the other. This one has been growing in water “powered” with a symbol from Baybayin, while the smaller plant was submerged in plain water." This is not a reliable source. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Baybayin. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 03:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Baybayin. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 11:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Baybayin. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Something related to Angono Petroglyph?[edit]

I don't know what's this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.140.191 (talk) 12:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abakada connection?[edit]

Does it mean Abakada is connected to ancient Alibata Baybayin? A, B, K, D, G, H, I, L, M, N, O, P, R, S, T, U, W and Y? 124.106.137.149 (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. "A Ba Ka Da E/I Ga Ha La Ma Na NGa O/U Pa Ra Sa Ta Wa Ya" originated from Baybayin-Buhid, Baybayin-Hanunoó, Baybayin-Tagbanwa, and Baybayin-Tagalog.
ᜀ ᜊ ᜃ ᜇ ᜁ ᜄ ᜑ ᜎ ᜋ ᜈ ᜅ ᜌ ᜐ ᜆ ᜏ ᜌ
—Yuki (雪亮) (talk | Contribs) 09:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lock the page against Anonymous and new account editing[edit]

I propose that this page be locked against Anonymous and less than 4 years accounts from doing any edits. —ᜌᜓᜃᜒ (Yuki|雪亮) (talk | Contribs) 13:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Sisters"[edit]

Jumark, Buhid, Hanunoó, and Tagbanwa are not "sisters" of Baybayin, they are all Baybayin. Baybayin-Buhid, Baybayin-Hanunoó, Baybayin-Tagalog, and Baybayin-Tagbanwa, are all Baybayin. Please read an already sourced material here: https://www.quora.com/Is-Baybayin-really-a-writing-system-in-the-entire-pre-hispanic-Philippines-Whats-the-basis-for-making-it-a-national-writing-system-if-pre-hispanic-kingdoms-weren-t-homogenous/answer/Christopher-Ray-Miller —ᜌᜓᜃᜒ (Yuki|雪亮) (talk | Contribs) 03:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jumark, please do not add back a reverted edit until we have discussed it and agreed on something. As of now I left it as-is but it should be reverted back again. Thank you. —ᜌᜓᜃᜒ (Yuki|雪亮) (talk | Contribs) 09:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ᜌᜓᜃᜒ (Yuki|雪亮): I'll support the revert. Btw, C.R. Miller is definitely an authority on Indian-derived scripts, but shouldn't we work with a better source than a Quora post? I'd suggest his "Devanagari's descendants in North and South India, Indonesia and the Philippines". And even better for this article: Norman de los Santos' "Philippine Indigenous Writing Systems in the Modern World". It's an unreviewed conference paper, but gives a great overview of the topic. – Austronesier (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, definitely we can use other sources. Christopher and Norman are great authorities about Baybayin and its scope. Great find by the way, a detailed breakdown and explanation of Baybayin and its variants, dispelling further the assumption that Baybayin is Tagalog only. —ᜌᜓᜃᜒ (Yuki|雪亮) (talk | Contribs) 12:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good day.I learned Baybayin because of 2Paul Morrow's yr.2002 website back in 2007, and Christopher Rey Miller is my social media friend. I'm not against your point, Im with you, but the reason I used the word "Script" is because for the none Filipino speaker to understand it. For example, Tagalog script in filipino (and also spanish) called it as Sulat Tagalog, and sulat means writings or script, alfabeto tagalog. While Sulat Badlit is Badlit script, alfabeto cebuano etc. Now i also called Tagalog script Tagalog Baybayin, and Badlit as Bisaya Baybayin. Ok to make it easy

Differen Abugidas in the Philippines:: (Collectively called as Baybayin)

1. Tagalog script - Tagalog Baybayin (Sulat Tagalog, Old Tagalog)

2. Sambal script - Zambaleño Baybayin (Sulat Sambal, Sambali)

3. Kur-itan script - Ilocano Baybayin (Kurdita)

4. Kulitan script -Kapampangan Baybayin (Pamagkulit, Sulat Kapampangan)

5. Basahan script - Bicolano Baybayin (Surat Bikol)

6. Pangasinan script - Pangasinense Baybayin (Sulat Pangasinense)

7. Hanunuo script - Mangyan Baybayin (Surat Hanunuo, Surat Mangyan)

8. Buhid script - Mangyan Baybayin (Surat Buhid, Surat Mangyan)

9. Tagbanwa script - Aborlan Tagbanwa Baybayin (Apurahuano)

10. Ibalnan script - Palaw'an Baybayin (Palawano)

11. Badlit script - Bisaya Baybayin (Suwat Bisaya) Zzardie06 (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it is like that, so when I make article in Bikol Sentral Wiki, I will put, Basahan Tagalog, Basahan Kulitan, Since Basahan is a collective term in Bikol for those written scripts in the Philippines, according to Lisboa. --Philippines ᜰᜲᜫᜲᜨ᜴ ᜢᜩᜲᜰᜳᜧ᜴ Philippines(Talk) 04:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baybayin (Abugida scripts in the Philippines)[edit]

Baybayin is the collective term for Abugida scripts that are used in the Philippines. It is an umbrella term, a hypernym. The parent system of Baybayin is Kawi script, while its child system of it are Tagalog scripts, Sambal script, Kur-itan script, Kulitan script, Basahan script, pangasinense script, Hanunuo script, Buhid script, Tagbanwa script, Ibalnan script, and Badlit script. Suyat on the other hand are the proposed collective term for the Philippine scripts in the Philippines, not just Alphasyllabary (Abugida), but also the other writing systems such as Syllabary and Consonantary (Abjad). In Syllabary Philippine had Iniskaya or Eskaya script, and in Consonantary (Abjad) there are Jawi script and Kirim script (Batang Arab). Zzardie06 (talk) 11:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zzardie06: Experts like Miller and Morrow have stated that Baybayin was one single writing system with various local variants, however these local variants had fewer differences between them (for example Tagalog Baybayin vs Bisayan Baybayin) than the different hand writings of Baybayin in one single region. This is also easily seen in comparison charts found on Morrows website. In addition, the Spanish colonial writers also treated Baybayin as one single script and stated that it spread from Luzon to other regions such as the Visayas only after their arrival, this time frame is too short to talk about "different scripts". In my opinion, to clear up the confusion we should make it clear in the article that all these different languages use a variant of Baybayin, and not a completely different script. So for example "Tagalog Baybayin" and "Bisayan Baybayin/Badlit", not "Tagalog script" and "Bisayan script". Glennznl (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Shouldn't we better commit ourselves to better sources for this topic? It is not contemporary history or a web meme, so news sites like CNN and all those blogs are not WP:reliable sources, although I would probably make an exception with font-related questions. For anything else, only peer-reviewed scholarly sources should be used, and material that can not be supported by such sources is deletable. This topic is an important piece of Philippine heritage that deserves quality coverage. –Austronesier (talk) 10:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Austronesier: Agreed. The article had a lot of incorrect and low quality information from low quality sources. I have been busy reviewing the sources and deleting unsourced low quality information. Imho what the article needs now is new information added from good sources and fact checking existing information. Glennznl (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baybayin[edit]

May I ask? Sorry If im not good in speaking in English, by the way, I don't know why this article says that all scripts of Philippines came from Tagalog Baybayin? 

--Philippines ᜰᜲᜫᜲᜨ᜴ ᜢᜩᜲᜰᜳᜧ᜴ Philippines(Talk)  04:05, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ShiminUfesoj: Because Baybayin IS one single writing system, which is proven both by Spanish historical documentation (which treated Baybayin as one script) and by modern analysis, which shows that Baybayin examples found in different regions of the Philippines have only little variation, not enough to make them different scripts. Therefore in this article Baybayin is treated as one script, although regional varieties are mentioned. The only scripts that survived until modern day and evolved a bit, and can be seen as "different" are Tagbanwa from Palawan and the two Mangyan scripts from Mindoro. Other than that Baybayin in the Visayas, Luzon, Bikol is nearly identical. I recommend you look at the following link, so you can see it with your own eyes http://paulmorrow.ca/baychart.htm Glennznl (talk) 09:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, these edits trying to propagrate that Baybayin is THE collective term for all Philippine languages are done by Tagalists. --Filipinayzd 05:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Separate Baybayin Article in Tagalog Baybayin.[edit]

Since this article is said to be a collective term of indigenous script in the Philippines, it is necessary to omit Examples of Baybayin script of Katagalugan, such as Our Father who wrote the in Tagalog Baybayin script, because it is unfair to any other script, or otherwise insert an example of script of Kulitan, Buhid, etc. Because the article looks like a Tagalog script.--Philippines ᜰᜲᜫᜲᜨ᜴ ᜢᜩᜲᜰᜳᜧ᜴ Philippines(Talk) 05:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Putting Image in Overview section[edit]

Is putting image in Overview section restricted? If yes, why? and if no, what images can I put at Overview section for others not to removed it again and again, because its stressing me out everytime I put an image someone put it to other section or delete it. It takes a lot of time to enhance those images from it's original sources, just so you know. Zzardie06 (talk) 13:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spotted Tagalism[edit]

Baybayin is a Tagalog script and NOT the collective term for all Brahmic scripts in the Philippines. --Filipinayzd 05:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Filipinayzd: Baybayin IS one single writing system, which is proven both by Spanish historical documentation (which treated Baybayin as one script) and by modern analysis, which shows that Baybayin examples found in different regions of the Philippines have only little variation, not enough to make them different scripts. Therefore in this article Baybayin is treated as one script, although regional varieties are mentioned. The only scripts that survived until modern day and evolved a bit, and can be seen as "different" are Tagbanwa from Palawan and the two Mangyan scripts from Mindoro. Other than that Baybayin in the Visayas, Luzon, Bikol is nearly identical. I recommend you look at the following link, so you can see it with your own eyes http://paulmorrow.ca/baychart.htm Glennznl (talk) 09:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think in this matter, there is consensus at least between Zzardie06, Glennznl and me. Baybayin may originate from the Tagalog name of the script, but it is the common English name. It's like saying that narra is an Ilocanism, or carabao a Warayism. I agree to revert. –Austronesier (talk) 09:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Filipinayzd and ShiminUfesoj: I reverted your edits because discussions about the names and varieties versus different scripts has been held countless times, and the evidence points to Baybayin being a single script with some local variation. Baybayin is now simply the standard word for this writing system in English. I don't want to discourage you from contributing to this article, but fighting about the name doesn't make it better at all. If you can find a good quality source, like an academic article or even a Spanish primary source, proving some of these names like Badlit were actually used by the local people at the time, it's fine with me. However, changing each and every name at once because of "tagalisms" screams like politically motivated vandalism to me. It does not contribute anything to the article. Thanks. Glennznl (talk) 09:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

why did you reverted my contribution? im just put picture about basahan, so Basahan is not acceptable on this article? Well in that case... Sorry Sir/mam but i don't understand --Philippines ᜰᜲᜫᜲᜨ᜴ ᜢᜩᜲᜰᜳᜧ᜴ Philippines(Talk) 14:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

enrile is just one of the people who research of Basahan, why you don't look at Malcolm W. Mintz's research, In the Baybayin chart of Enrile, i dont trust, since basahan script of Bikol way back 16s in the times of Marcos de Lisboa shown that there is a "ba" in Bikol Script. Dont stick on that picture posted on 28 April 2020 by one user, look and research on other researcher. sorry I dont have time to research those because Im just a simple person living in a simple life, Dios mabalos --Philippines ᜰᜲᜫᜲᜨ᜴ ᜢᜩᜲᜰᜳᜧ᜴ Philippines(Talk)
basahan kindly look, even though it is a stub I hope you'll getting info about basahan --Philippines ᜰᜲᜫᜲᜨ᜴ ᜢᜩᜲᜰᜳᜧ᜴ Philippines(Talk) 14:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ShiminUfesoj: As has been said numerous times, Baybayin spread through the Philippines from the Tagalogs, and as you can see with Basahan, it is simply a variant of Baybayin, no more different than a font. You shouldn't see Baybayin as a Tagalog script, but as a Filipino script. Baybayin is just the name we use in English to refer to all the varieties, because this name is the most widely known. Glennznl (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You just removed all of the contributions of the people who spent their time to add something to this page! People like us, like me base it to Paul Morrow, Christopher Ray Miller, Norman de los Santos, and Sanghabi's studies of Baybayin and Ancient Philippine scripts... And you people just deleted it without understanding it as a whole... This is our life since 2005 I focus myself to study Abugidas in my country the Philippines, but because you have the power to edit, destroy it, and vandalized it, you do what you want... By doing that, readers will never ever trust this page for now on if you continue this practice of just removing thing people added, first of all, a person that doesn't know anything about baybayin will never ever try to contribute here, spent or waste their time to edit this freakin page. Because you are confuse you people will involved others to your confusion, now because of what you did people that are reading this article will not rely to this Baybayin page any longer.... Zzardie06 (talk) 20:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zzardie06: I do not quite understand why you would think this way. The current state of the article is the best it has ever been. Go back in time through the revision history, even just three months, and the article was an unorganized mess relying on Quora posts, news articles, blog posts and unsourced nonsense. All important decisions since then have been discussed and all edits have been carried out in an academic way: sources have been re-checked (in many cases the content on the page did not match the source), unsourced nonsense has been deleted, lots of clean up and reorganization has been done, tons of information about the history has been added using primary sources where possible. The page has never been this informative.
Now, I suspect your complaint refers to the decision to rename Baybayin "scripts" as "varieties". This too has been done based on sources, namely Morrow and Miller. Look at Stricnina's awesome research at the bottom of this talk page. If you have any particular point to discuss, I am happy to talk about it. Glennznl (talk) 20:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If "Baybayin" is the umbrella term, what to call the popular variety that is NOT Hanuno'o, Buhid, Tagbanwa and Kulitan?[edit]

Is that still called "Baybayin"? I tried to dig some sources online. It was called "Moro writing" by the Visayans for example but of course we can't use that for differentiation (this is just a minor trivia from W.H. Scott's book):

Literacy came late to the Visayans. Both Colín and Alcina thought in the 1660's that it had been received from the Tagalogs only a few years before the arrival of the Spaniards. Actually, it seems to have come a little later. Antonio Pigafetta said that Rajah Kolambu of Limasawa was amazed to see writing for the first time in 1521; Miguel Loarca said the "Pintados" had no writing at all in 1582; and when Legazpi's royal notary took the sworn testimony of a number of Visayans and Borneans in Bohol in 1565 - including the famous Si Katuna - none of them were able to sign their names. As it happens, the only known specimens of Visayan penmanship today are the signatures of Bernardino Dimabasa and Maria Mutia of Bantay Island which appear in their 1647 divorce proceedings. In Alcina's day it was assumed that Philippine literacy was ultimately derived from the non-Filipino Muslims because the first literate Filipinos the Spaniards encountered were the Muslim rulers of Manila. Thus the Visayans referred to the Philippine script as "Moro writing", perhaps with a smug sense of Christian satisfaction.

— William Henry Scott, "Lost Visayan Literature", Looking for the Prehispanic Filipino (1992)

But of course I am more interested to a proper academic term to use when referring to the baybayin of the Doctrina Christiana which is not the baybayin variety of the Hanuno'o, Buhid and Tagbanwa. So are we saying here that Baybayin is BOTH the umbrella term and the term used to a specific variety of baybayin?

In a more academic sense, I believe there's this consistency in Ramon Guillermo's articles regarding the usage of "Tagalog Baybayin" when referring to a specific variety of baybayin (if we are going to use baybayin as an umbrella term). For example, in the article Barang king banga: A Visayan language reading of the Calatagan pot inscription (CPI), the term Tagalog baybayin is juxtaposed to the expression Surat Mangyan when trying to distinguish between these two varieties. See also how the same term is used in the article with title Ating Panginoon Sisu Kitu: The Tagalog Baybayin Text of the Doctrina Christiana of 1593 and the Legend of Unreadability. See also Ina Bisa Kata: An experimental decipherment of the Calatagan Pot Inscription. In most of his articles, Ramon Guillermo is aware that the term baybayin is used in a more collective sense, i.e. an umbrella term for all the Philippine syllabaries with Indic origins. For example:

Francisco accomplished his preliminary series of equivalences by means of sensitive and rigorous paleographic analysis with reference to known syllabic scripts or syllabaries (known as baybayin or surat in the Philippines) (emphasis mine)

— Ramon Guillermo, " Ina Bisa Kata: An experimental decipherment of the Calatagan Pot Inscription"

Like the Surat Bugis of Sulawesi, to which they do not seem closely related in any other way, the baybayin or surat systems in the Philippines do not possess any so-called virama (‘vowel killer’) which could have allowed for the representation of ending or closing consonants after a consonant–vowel cluster

— Ramon Guillermo, "Barang king banga: A Visayan language reading of the Calatagan pot inscription (CPI)"

Of course, I feel the urge to repeat again that when speaking about a specific form of baybayin that is the most popular variety, he calls it "Tagalog Baybayin". I also looked elsewhere outside Ramon Guillermo's works to see how widespread the usage of the term "Tagalog baybayin". I see that Google Books has relevant hits when it comes to the Tagalog baybayin and you can check for yourselves. But of course, you have other scholarly works like that of Jean-Paul Potet that refers to the Tagalog baybayin as just "baybayin". In his book "Baybayin, the Syllabic Alphabet of the Tagalogs", he just uses the term baybayin as the alphabet of the Tagalog people, without bothering too much on distinction between the baybayin varieties, but then his book is mainly about the Tagalog script anyway, so he probably didn't feel the need for terminological clarifications. When referring to the Tagbanwa script for example, he just uses "Tagbanwa writing" or "Tagbanwa characters".

I'd like the thoughts of others on this. Stricnina (talk) 09:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Stricnina: We have evidence of the name Baybayin being used: Published in 1613, San Buenaventura's Spanish-Tagalog dictionary's entry of "ABC's" (ie the alphabet) was translated as "baibayin" ("...de baybay, que es deletrear...", translated: "from "baybay", which means "to spell"). The Doctrina Christiana was specifically aimed at the Tagalog people, using their writing system and also the earliest attestation of Baybayin we have, so it is THE Baybayin. In other words, Baybayin refers to both the umbrella term for all Baybayin varieties and to the "Tagalog Baybayin". Similarly, Latin script refers to both the varieties like Fraktur, as the classical Antiqua.
Baybayin has the longest history in the Philippines in Luzon and Palawan, and as the article says it spread from Luzon to the other areas of the Philippines. Tagalog Baybayin is redundant yes, but I believe using Baybayin as a generic name for this writing system is fair and justified, for some reasons: 1. The name has a long documented history no other name has 2. Baybayin historically spread from the Tagalogs 3. The Spanish treated the Baybayin varieties from other tribes as Baybayin 4. It has a popularity among the general public which no other name has.
In my opinion, "Tagalog Baybayin" could be replaced with either "Baybayin" or "Standard Baybayin'. Glennznl (talk) 10:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Glennznl: I don't mind using "Baybayin" in this dual sense: as an umbrella term AND as a specific variety of Baybayin which is the most popular or standard one. But I also believe it might have not been explained very well in the Wikipedia article itself, hence why so many people here are protesting about the Tagalog imperialism etc. In fact, I myself is confused on this, that's why I am writing this. It might help if we try to clarify the definitions and the terminologies, like for example specifically stating that we use the term "Baybayin" in this dual sense. I still prefer disambiguation when dealing with baybayin as an umbrella term vs THE baybayin of the Tagalogs. I also believe "Tagalog baybayin" is not redundant and Ramon Guillermo will agree with me on this (or else why is he insisting on using "Tagalog baybayin" instead of just "baybayin"?). Also, has there been an investigation here about how popular or common in scholarly articles are the terms "Hanunuo Baybayin" (vs "Surat Hanunuo" or "Hanunuo script"), "Tagbanwa Baybayin" (vs "Tagbanwa script" or "Surat Tagbanwa") and "Buhid Baybayin" (vs "Surat Buhid" or "Buhid script")? Even if we agree that they are all baybayin anyway, I believe we still need to avoid or at least limit the terminologies that are not yet that successful in scholarly sources. Or maybe terms like "Hanunuo Baybayin" are already popular in academic circles, I have no idea. But my previous search tells me otherwise. Stricnina (talk) 10:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Stricnina and Austronesier: I see your point. I propose we change the Etymology section to a Terminology section where we explain everything about the name. I think for the Mangyan scripts and Tagbanwa we could drop the -Baybayin, since those scripts survived hundreds of years after Baybayin went extinct and they underwent some evolution. For the others, I believe we should find either primary sources with the original names, or investigate which names are most commonly used in Academic articles. For example, the Kapampangan script of today is an artificial script designed in the 90s. Are the names Pamagkulit and Kulitan original or a creation of an activist in the 90s? Before that is settled, I prefer to stick to a generic "Kapampangan Baybayin", if that makes sense. Glennznl (talk) 10:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Stricnina and Glennznl: I read "Hanunuo Baybayin" etc. not as a term, but as a phrase i.e. "Hanunuo baybayin" = "the baybayin of the Hanunuo". But come to think of it, an umbrella term does not automatically have to appear in the name of its members (we say "apple", not "apple fruit"). Follow the sources, that's the best principle here. –Austronesier (talk) 10:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
by the way I agree to Mr. Austro, since as a reader if I don't have knowledge about these, I will thought that Baybayin of Katagalugan is a Superior of all script in the Ph, Bikolano Baybayin? Maybe its better The Baybayin of Bikolano not Bikolano Baybayin, if you're a English Teacher, you'll notice the Difference between "The Baybayin of Bikolano" and "Bikolano Baybayin".. just follow the source --Philippines ᜰᜲᜫᜲᜨ᜴ ᜢᜩᜲᜰᜳᜧ᜴ Philippines(Talk) 14:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
we need true linguistics here aside of tagalog linguistics --Philippines ᜰᜲᜫᜲᜨ᜴ ᜢᜩᜲᜰᜳᜧ᜴ Philippines(Talk) 14:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ShiminUfesoj: I also somewhat understand the frustration and, thus, the need of outside help (preferably from Baybayin scholars themselves). If I were you, I would focus on the common and/or popular definition of Baybayin in scholarly (and not-so-scholarly) articles. It might help you come in terms with the Baybayin definition. Or, it might actually bolster whatever argument you are trying to make related to "Tagalism", "Tagalog bias" etc. In order to do that, you need to read scholarly sources. I'm now reading the bulk of Christopher Ray Miller's works on Academia.edu website (including his Quora post, which is the source used in the Wiki article for the "Baybayin as an umbrella term" definition) and I might come back here to present some arguments. Stricnina (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. dario, Do you know someone who specializes in the study of letters or maybe linguistics? maybe they can help with this issue? --Philippines ᜰᜲᜫᜲᜨ᜴ ᜢᜩᜲᜰᜳᜧ᜴ Philippines(Talk) 15:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:ShiminUfesoj, unfortunatly I do not know anyone who could help you in this discussion, try to reach an agreement with Austronesier. Sincerelly. DARIO SEVERI (talk) 00:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't misquote me, I think Hanunuo baybayin etc. is perfectly fine and should not give rise to erratic assumptions about a Tagalog bias. Babayin is the common English umbrella term (cf. the various quotes above). As I said in the previous section, calling it a "Tagalism" is just as off the mark as saying that narra is an Ilocanism, or carabao a Warayism. And since you copied my phrase "just follow the source": where are your sources? And btw, the "experts" (= editors who are willing to edit based on WP:reliable sources and not on ethnic gut feeling) are right here in this very discussion :) –Austronesier (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About the Baybayin definition[edit]

Popular usage of the term Baybayin? Also, what is its popular definition?[edit]

One of the arguments being used here to support the "Baybayin" = all the Philippine Indic abugida systems is that "Baybayin" is just the most popular or common term to refer to the group of these writing systems. However, I checked news articles and a few scholarly articles which use the term "Baybayin" not in the generalized "umbrella term" definition but to refer to a specific script, while clearly differentiating it from the other known scripts. While it is true that "Baybayin" is a popular term in the English language, the popular usage of the term "Baybayin" is not the "umbrella term" being mentioned in the Wikipedia article itself. "Baybayin" refers to the standard Baybayin script which is the most popular variety, while the others such as Hanuno'o script, Buhid script, Tagbanwa script, etc. aren't considered as "baybayin". Just to mention a few examples of news articles which made distinctions between "Baybayin" and the other scripts:

The National Commission for Culture and the Arts should move to “protect all indigenous writing systems, not just baybayin,” he said.

— Protect all PH writing systems, heritage advocates urge Congress

Four indigenous Filipino writing systems are now available for users of Google’s virtual keyboard for Android users. The technology company announced yesterday the inclusion of indigenous scripts Baybayin, Buhid, Tagbanwa (Aborlan) and Hanunuo in Gboard for Android, a virtual keyboard app developed by Google.

— Indigenous Filipino scripts now available on Google keyboard

The Philippines’ indigenous writing systems that are mentioned in the post include the Kulitan, an indian-inspired Kapampangan script; Kurdita, an Ilocano script; Haninu’o and Buhid, writing scripts used by the Mangyans of Southern Mindoro; Baybayin from the Katagalugan; Basahan, a syllabic script used by Bicolanos; Tagbanwa, an ethnic writing system used by a certain group of people in Northern Palawan; Badlit, another writing system from the Visayans; Jawi, an Arabic writing system in Greater Sulu; and lastly, the Kirim, a script used in Greater Mindanao.

— How well do you know our national language?

Like other Southeast Asian writing systems, Baybayin and the rest of the country’s ancient writing systems like the Tagbanua in Palawan and the Hanunoo-Mangyan in Mindoro, may have come from India’s ancient scripts.

— Learning Baybayin: Reconnecting with our Filipino roots

Baybayin is one of the various pre-Hispanic scripts found throughout the islands and is considered as part of the Suyat or Surat writing system. It refers to a group of other indigenous writing scripts that include the Apurahuano or Tagbanwa script of the Tagbanwa people, the Kur-itan script of Ilocos, Badlit script of the Visayas, the Buid script of the Buid Mangyan, the Hanunoo script of the Hanunoo Mangyan, Iniskaya script of the Eskaya people, Kulitan script of the Pampangan and the Palawan script of Palawan, among others

— Baybayin and the Proposal for a national writing system: Knowledge and Attitude among University Students in Quezon City, Philippines

The news article below even makes a mention about Ancient Filipino writing systems that aren't Baybayin, instead advocating for "suyat" as the umbrella term. Reminder that included in the non-Baybayin scripts are the Hanuno'o, Buhid, Tagbanwa, etc. scripts.

But in upland areas and remote villages that were difficult for colonizers to reach, some scripts remained intact. There are only two places left in the Philippines that have preserved their ancient syllabic scripts: Mindoro, where the Hanunó'o-Mangyan and the Buhid-Mangyan simply call their scripts “Surat Mangyan,” and Palawan, where the Tagbanua and Pala’wan groups share a writing system they simply call “surat” — a word meaning “writing.” Some ethnolinguists and advocates argue that “suyat” and “surat” are the best neutral term to use as a general descriptor of our writing systems.

— Ancient Filipino writing systems that aren’t Baybayin

Through Google Scholar, I also found an article written by Emerenciana Lorenzo Catapang, the executive director of the Mangyan Heritage Center itself! How did the author used the term Baybayin? Certainly not in the collective "umbrella term" sense:

Thinking that the script was the same all over the islands, the friars wrote this book using the Tagalog syllabic script called baybayin (Meyer, Schadenberg, & Foy, 1895). Unbeknownst to them, several regions had their own syllabic scripts with distinct differences: the Ilocanos and the Pangasinenses in the North, the Kapampangans in Central Luzon, The Mangyans of Mindoro in Southern Luzon, the Tagbanuas and Palaw-ans of Palawan Island in the West, the Visayans, and the other enthnolinguistic groups who did not mix much with each other. Even indigenous peoples from the same island have their respective Hanunuo Mangyan and Buhid Mangyan scripts. This is why the Mangyan Heritage Center accepts this challenge of reviving these two endangered scripts.

— Reviving the Hanunuo and Buhid Mangyan Syllabic Scripts of the Philippines

In some of these articles, it is apparent that not only is "Baybayin = umbrella term" not the popular definition, it is also controversial. For the sake of WP:NPOV, I would argue that we should refrain from using the "Baybayin = umbrella term" definition.

Many of the regional scripts aren't really distinct from Baybayin, they are just different "styles" or "varieties" of Baybayin[edit]

While popular perception is Baybayin is distinct from most of the region-specific writing systems, most scholars beg to differ. I will present two articles by Christopher Miller and Paul Morrow in particular. In Miller's article titled Survey of Indigenous Scripts of Indonesia and the Philippines , he explained about the "misconception" of the several region-based scripts that are distinct from Baybayin:

Because of the emphasis on the regions in which these samples were produced, it has come to be believed that there were a variety of different though related regional scripts in the Philippines. One such case comes from unusual-looking shapes in samples from different locations in the Visayas that have led many to believe there was an internally-consistent “Visayan” script distinct from that used by the Tagalogs of Luzon. Nevertheless, he also clearly states later on that many of the so-called regional variants aren't actually "regional scripts" with distinct features.[...] Nonetheless, careful comparison with authentic handwriting samples can help to confirm the status of a letter shape apparently specific to a certain region — and nearly without exception, these turn out to be ones already found in handwriting of people in Manila and nearby regions during the same period.

— Survey of Indigenous Scripts of Indonesia and the Philippines

This would be in line with what Paul Morrow said in his article about Baybayin, in which he clearly explains that many of the so-called regional variants of Baybayin aren't really distinct:

The baybayin script, as it is known today, fell out of use in most areas by the end of the 1600s. In the 19th century, historians gathered old samples of baybayin writing from various sources and locations and assembled them in charts for comparison, noting the source location or language of each specimen. Most of these same historians came to the conclusion that all the variations in the letter shapes were due to the tastes and writing styles of the individuals who wrote the original specimens and not due to regional differences. In other words, there was only one baybayin. But, in the 20th century many writers copied the comparison charts into their school textbooks with little or no explanation attached. Thus most readers were led to believe that each sample of writing was a different alphabet according to its title in the chart.

— Baybayin Styles & Their Sources

This would mean that it is clear in the Baybayin scholars community that the "varieties" (Christopher Miller's term) or "variants" or "styles" (using Paul Morrow's term) are actually one and only Baybayin. So, most of the scripts shown here are actually just Baybayin, full stop. No Ilocos kurdita, no Visayan badlit, etc. They are just different handwriting styles of the same Baybayin!

I suspect this is where the "Baybayin = umbrella term" definition come from. However, I noticed that it generated a misunderstanding here in the Wikipedia community. In page 3 of Miller's article, he didn't really speak of the Baybayin "varieties" present in Mindoro and Palawan, he only talked about the other regional varieties like the one in the Visayas. Paul Morrow's chart also didn't include "Hanuno'o", "Buhid" and the other so-called non-Baybayin scripts featured in the CNN article titled Ancient Filipino writing systems that aren’t Baybayin. So why in the main Wikipedia article are we saying that the Mangyan, Tagbanwa and the Kulitan scripts are just varieties of Baybayin, in the same category with Visayan badlit, Ilocos kurdita, etc.? If you carefully read the Miller and the Morrow article, it is clear that they give separate treatment between the Mangyan, Palawan and the Kulitan scripts from the other regional variants!

The "distinct varieties of a single script" of Christopher Miller[edit]

So, where did the "Baybayin = umbrella term" or "Baybayin = hypernym" definition come from? From the Wikipedia article itself, the source being used is Christopher Miller, a known Baybayin scholar. The source itself comes from Quora. When reading through his post, you will notice he uses "variety" or "varieties" a lot, including "three closely related varieties, each with its own peculiarities, used by the Southern Buhid", "Luzon and Palawan varieties", "the variety used in Pampanga", etc. But "varieties" of what? Is he necessarily talking about the "Baybayin varieties"? I would say not, especially in the beginning. For example, he was talking about the "Philippine script varieties" judging from the beginning paragraph itself:

I have close to a decade’s experience working on the history and relationships of Philippine Indic script varieties, including the modern Mangyan varieties in Mindoro and the relationships of all these varieties to scripts of Indonesia and northwestern Indonesia. I have the largest photographed collection anywhere of archival documents with writing in Philippine script varieties, most from photographs I myself took in 2011 in the University of Santo Tomas Archives.

— Christopher Miller

Notice how he use "Philippine script varieties" or "Philippine Indic script varieties" without resorting to the "Baybayin = hypernym" definition being used by the Wikipedia article. The next sentences would be about the different "varieties" of the Philippine Indic script.

Christopher Miller then talked about the "three varieties of a single script":

So we can say that there were three somewhat distinct varieties of a single script in the late 1500s and 1600s, though they could not be described as three different scripts any more than the different styles of Latin script across medieval or modern Europe with their slightly different sets of letters and spelling systems.

— Christopher Miller

He would then state clearly what are these three Baybayin varieties during the historical period he focused on "late 1500s and 1600s":

three varieties of Baybayin were used in Palawan, Pampanga and the rest of Luzon, this last one spreading south into the Visayas and Mindoro.

— Christopher Miller

The Luzon variety here would be the Baybayin scripts mentioned in the previous articles of Miller and Morrow. However, when talking about the other scripts such as the Mangyan and the Palawan variants, he would then talk about "natural evolution". He states that those variants descended from the old script (Baybayin), instead of saying that they are the "varieties of Baybayin" mentioned earlier. Evolution took place, and evolution usually means speciation, differentiation, a more noticeable differentiation compared to the so-called difference between Baybayin and Badlit for example:

'The only modern survivals that descend directly from the old script through natural evolution are the Pala’wan script inherited from the Tagbanwa on Palawan and the several Buhid and Hanunuo varieties on Mindoro.

— Christopher Miller

So in the end, while there were three varieties of Baybayin in the late 1500s to late 1600s, in modern times these varieties had undergone "natural evolution". As for Kulitan, Christopher Miller would then explain about its "artificial evolution". The Mangyan and the Palawan varieties aren't the "three distinct varieties of a single script in the late 1500s and 1600s", they are descendants of the old Baybayin script varieties. An example of scripts with similar relationship would be between the Old Italic scripts (which includes the Etruscan alphabet) and the Latin alphabet. While Latin has Etruscan as an immediate ancestor, it doesn't mean that Latin is still Etruscan. I imagine the Baybayin->Mangyan or Baybayin->Palawan have the same relationship. Christopher Miller would then describe the modern descendants as "distinct regional scripts" as I will show later, in other words, they are not just "varieties" of the old Baybayin script, but evolved "distinct regional scripts"...

The "distinct regional scripts" of Christopher Miller[edit]

Let's go back again to Christopher Millers article entitled Survey of Indigenous Scripts of Indonesia and the Philippines, which is actually a great complement to his Quora post (which is being used by the main Wikipedia article as source of the "Baybayin=hypernym" definition even though nothing like that is actually stated in the Quora post itself). Again:

During the 19th century, the existence of a distinct regional script still used by the Tagbanuwa of Palawan (the main southwestern island in the Philippines) came to the attention of observers, including Marche (1887) and Marcilla y Martín (1896). This variety, written on bamboo or wood, is distinguished from Luzon varieties by shapes for several letters, most notably ‹k› and ‹w› that are markedly different from those used elsewhere (but for a single occurrence of ‹w› in a single 1591 signature from Taal, Luzon). In the 20th century, this script was adopted from the Tagbanuwa by the Pala’wán further south in the island and described in detail by Batoon et al (1999) and Revel (1990).

— Survey of Indigenous Scripts of Indonesia and the Philippines

For the Mangyan varieties, he called them "distinct bamboo script":

In Mindoro, located in between Palawan and Luzon, the existence of a distinct bamboo script still used by Mangyan tribespeople of the inland mountains was first brought to widespread attention by the detailed study by Meyer et al (1895). Gardner (1939, 1943) described early 20th-century Mangyan script, and Postma (1971) confirmed the existence of a script variety, with different rounded and square styles, used by northern Buhid Mangyan: this variety is quite distinct from the better-attested variety used by the Hanunóo to their south and some southern Buhid. Postma later published a small primer to southern Mangyan script (Postma 1986, 2002).

— Survey of Indigenous Scripts of Indonesia and the Philippines

.

Note that they are treated differently from the other "regional varieties" mentioned earlier which in reality are just different "styles" as Paul Morrow would say. These are actual "regional scripts", unlike Badlit and Kurdita. Also note how the word "baybayin" is never employed here. He instead prefers to call them "scripts". This is true even in his Quora post: when he is talking generally about the Philippine scripts, he doesn't use Baybayin. How he defines Baybayin?

the script observed by Europeans in Luzon and the Visayas at the time of the first contact is very different in appearance and structure. This script, which has come to be known as Baybayin— most likely a synecdoche for the sense of an ordering, here of letters, in sequence (Pardo de Tavera 1884) — is found in the earliest printed book in a Philippine language, the 1593 Doctrina Christiana en Lengua Española y Tagala (Anonymous 1593) and in a series of legal documents preserved in Spanish and Philippine archives that span more than a century: the three oldest, all in the Archivo General de Índias in Seville, are from 1591 and 1599.

— Survey of Indigenous Scripts of Indonesia and the Philippines

The next paragraph about this would be the debunking of the misconception of several "alphabets" which are supposed to be "distinct" from the Tagalog script but actually aren't (look again at my " Many of the regional scripts aren't really distinct from Baybayin, they are just different "styles" or "varieties of Baybayin" for more details). Nothing about that definition is a clear statement that Baybayin is the collective term used for all the scripts. When Christopher Miller wants to use a hypernym, he would use "Philippine scripts" or "Philippine Indic Scripts" as you can see in both his "Survey" article and in his Quora post.

If you consult the last slide of Christopher Miller's presentation From Surat to surat: New evidence for the transmission of writing by early Gujarati traders in Sumatra, you can see that when he talks about the "Kapampangan variety" and the "Mindoro varieties", he doesn't mean the "varieties" of Baybayin, those where the varieties of the "Old Philippine Script", from which the modern Baybayin, the Sulat Kapampangan (Kulitan I guess), the Mindoro and the Palawan varieties descended. In fact, in that specific slide, he used "Baybayin" only in the relevant branch (Doctrina Christiana branch) and it is a far cry from the "Baybayin=hypernym" definition that the Wikipedia article thinks is what Christopher Miller is stating.

←===What's the point of all of this?===

  1. I showed how "Baybayin=umbrella term" definition is NOT the common nor the popular definition of Baybayin. Baybayin is a popular term, but the "umbrella term" definition isn't;
  2. Many of the so-called regional varieties are actually just misconceptions. There is only one Baybayin. However, in scholarly articles, the treatment with the Mangyan, Palawan and the modern Kapampangan scripts is different. They are not lumped with the Visayan badlit, Ilocano kurdita, etc.;
  3. Christopher Miller isn't using Baybayin as a hypernym, he uses "Philippine script varieties" or "Philippine Indic script varieties" instead. When he talked about the three distinct varieties of Baybayin in the 1500s-1600s, the modern Mangyan, Palawan, etc. scripts weren't included;
  4. "Baybayin=hypernym" definition is also controversial in some circles. This might create WP:NPOV issues, especially if it is not clear-cut that the sources use "Baybayin" with the umbrella term definition;

Stricnina (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for this information Mr./Ms.Stricnina-- Philippines ᜰᜲᜫᜲᜨ᜴ ᜢᜩᜲᜰᜳᜧ᜴ Philippines(Talk) 01:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ShiminUfesoj: You're welcome. I also noted an unsourced but still interesting claim from the Wikipedia article: "Jay Enage and other new advocates recommend that the Abugida writing system or scripts in the Philippines will be called baybayin." If that were true, that would explain a lot of things. However, I am looking for the source of this statement, or at least some sources that state that some advocates recommend Baybayin to be used as the umbrella term. Stricnina (talk) 06:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Stricnina: Thank you for your research and effort. Based on your findings and the earlier discussions in this talk page, I will propose the following measures:
1. Baybayin shall refer to the Tagalog script, as the Spanish documented this name and the Tagalog script is the "Standard Baybayin" from which other varieties came
2. The page shall retain the name Baybayin and not "Indic Scripts of the Philippines" or anything similar, as Tagalog Baybayin has the most attention from the general public, Baybayin is a widely known name, Tagalog/Filipino is the official language of the Philippines, Tagalog Baybayin is the best documented variety, as mentioned before is the origin of other varieties, and surviving daughter scripts should not be explained into detail on this page (next point).
3. Baybayin daughters, the surviving varieties that went through natural evolution, should be named without Baybayin behind it, so: Hanuno'o script, Buhid script, Tagbanwa script. These daughter scripts should not be explained into detail on this page, but instead they should be linked to their own pages.
4. Baybayin varieties shall be named either -varieties or -styles. Baybayin is a Tagalog centric name to some people, while the scripts are not very different from Baybayin, this is a good compromise. For example, the Visayan variety can be described as "Visayan variety (Badlit)".
5. I made an edit explaining that these varieties have been named that way (Badlit, Kuritan) in modern times, since we only find them in modern sources. I propose we keep it that way until we can find evidence of these names being used before. I suggest searching in old dictionaries.
I am looking forward to other peoples thoughts and hope we can resolve this issue soon. Glennznl (talk) 13:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Stricnina: Thank you as always for your thorough reading and analysis, this is very helpful and will certainly bring us one great step forward towards a well-sourced and coherent nomenclature. As for Glennznl's proposal for how to implement this, I have no objections at the moment; the only thing I would somehow miss is an article that discusses the "Indic Scripts of the Philippines", which could be the umbrella article for Baybayin, the Hanunuo script etc. –Austronesier (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Austronesier: To prevent creating yet another page with nearly duplicate content, I just modified Suyat to refer to Indic scripts of the Philippines, both historical and modern. I think it works quite well. Glennznl (talk) 14:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Glennzn1 and Austronesier: Thank you! I am here to express the fact that I do not have any problem with your proposals so far. Detailed information about the daughter systems of Baybayin can be spinned off to their respective articles. I hope other users from above like Filipinayzd and ShiminUfesoj also agree with the proposals mentioned here. Stricnina (talk) 06:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree for the facts only hehe well, Im agree to this proposal --Philippines ᜰᜲᜫᜲᜨ᜴ ᜢᜩᜲᜰᜳᜧ᜴ Philippines(Talk) 09:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Standard Baybayin" is another way of putting Tagalog script on top of the ladder. lol -Filipinayzd 09:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion criteria for External Links[edit]

Can someone explain what is "appropriate" for External Links? I added a reference to an online translator I developed and @Drmccreedy: removed it. Yet on the same section, there are links to 2 translators plus links to keyboard layouts, a video tutorial, etc.

I'm all for removing items that are not appropriate, but not what appears to be selective enforcement. Benbo2020 (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Benbo2020: Please read WP:SOAP and WP:COI. WP is not a tool to create a wider audience for your own web page, regardsless of whether it is commercial or non-commercial. And yes, you are right, by the criteria of WP:EL, there are several external links which should not be here. @Glennznl: Let's have a look at them! –Austronesier (talk) 17:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Austronesier: Thanks for the links. WP:SOAP states ″nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section...″ but I get the COI issue. Otoh I think there should be way to refer readers to useful resources. Ideally there would be one external link to a Web directory for Baybayin resources, but I'm not aware that such exists. Suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benbo2020 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Benbo2020: The main obstacle would be WP:ELNO, Nr. 11. We only want to direct our readers to reliable sources. Web directories with arbitrary content lead to the "jungle". Sure, user-generated content and self-published stuff can be awsome, but all too often not quite. The only way to measure this for WP's purposes is by the credentials of the author. –Austronesier (talk) 19:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Austronesier: Thanks for putting that to my attention. I cleaned up almost everything and only kept 2 of those font links from reliable sources. Glennznl (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Needs update[edit]

This article needs an update, but it would be inappropriate for me to do it. Three characters I proposed for encoding were added to Tagalog (Unicode block):

  • TAGALOG LETTER RA U+170D ᜍ TAGALOG LETTER RA
  • TAGALOG SIGN PAMUDPOD U+1715 ᜕ TAGALOG SIGN PAMUDPOD
  • TAGALOG LETTER ARCHAIC RA U+171F ᜟ TAGALOG LETTER ARCHAIC RA

Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 11:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Psiĥedelisto: Would you be able to link a source regarding this I can check? CMD (talk) 04:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis: My papers [3], [4], [5] cite reliable sources and due to being accepted correspondence with the Unicode Technical Committee I believe have a degree of RS status themselves (although make sure the weight you give them is WP:DUE). Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 04:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Diligence with those would be more related to WP:PRIMARY than DUE I think. I've read them before, but nonetheless could you just give me the page numbers for easy checking? Also, is there a way to source acceptance by Unicode? CMD (talk) 04:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis: You'd probably most interested in the information on the history of the characters in each paper. Tagalog (Unicode block) lists my papers and the various other documents which accepted them into the Standard. From the minutes of UTC №160:

[160-C24] Consensus: Accept U+170D TAGALOG LETTER RA and U+171F TAGALOG LETTER ARCHAIC RA with properties and glyphs as given in L2/19-258R for encoding in a future version of the standard.

And from the minutes of UTC №165:

[165-C18] Consensus: The UTC accepts U+1715 TAGALOG SIGN PAMUDPOD for encoding in a future version of the standard, as documented in L2/20-272.

Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 04:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis: Also, I wish to add, the degree to which you choose to view my papers as being self published sources is entirely up to you—I consider them as having undergone a quite challenging form of peer review in the Script Ad Hoc and Unicode Technical Committee, and there is a minimum process by which papers are accepted or rejected from the L2 document register as well. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 05:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, CMD said WP:PRIMARY, not WP:SELFPUB. –Austronesier (talk) 07:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One step back: what do you want to be added? The three characters are already mentioned in the Unicode section. Is it about a prose mention of these in §Characteristics#Characters? In this case, your papers are in fact WP:SECONDARY, as they discuss attestations in various sources, some of them good primary sources (not the tattoo guys, though). –Austronesier (talk) 07:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emphasize the incorrectness of the term "alibata".[edit]

I propose to change the wording "formerly known" to "sometimes known incorrectly", "incorrectly known", or "erroneously known" in the introductory sentence. What are your thoughts? JackH4L (talk) 20:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem like a useful judgement. These are just terms, and formerly conveys obsolescence already. CMD (talk) 00:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Literature[edit]

An ancient Filipino alphabet consisted of seventeen sumbol or they called it "Alibata“ 112.198.112.242 (talk) 13:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Baybayin" italicized in article[edit]

Is there a particular reason Baybayin (and a few names of other writing systems) appears in italics throughout the article? As far as I know that's not a convention for writing names of scripts in English. If it's a non-English word, what language is it in? Jsaiya (talk) 03:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Baybayin&oldid=1199675914"