GNU bug report logs - #55529
[PATCH] Add support for the Tagalog script

Previous Next

Full log

Message #14 received at 55529 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: समीर सिंह Sameer Singh
 <lumarzeli30 <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 55529 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#55529: [PATCH] Add support for the Tagalog script
Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 19:07:27 +0300

> From: समीर सिंह Sameer Singh <lumarzeli30 <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 21:14:04 +0530
> Cc: 55529 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
>  I think this entry should not be together with the old Indic scripts,
>  it should be separate from them.  Especially if you intend to add more
>  scripts/languages used in the Philippines.
> 
> Tagalog and other philippine scripts also descend from Brahmi. They are also superseded by the Roman
> script, so I would consider them as old.

Fine with me, if you insist.  But I raised a brow when I saw that,
FWIW.

And if you are talking mainly about a script, then its name is
Baybayin, no?  Tagalog is a language, not a script, right?

>  I wonder whether we should call the language-environment "Tagalog".
>  Why not "Filipino", which AFAIU is the official language name?
>  Perhaps also for the input method.
> 
> AFAICT from the internet, Tagalog and Filipino are two different languages, Filipino is Tagalog with foreign
> loanwords, for e.g. the Filipino word for a chair is "silya" (from Spanish)
> while in Tagalog it is "salumpuwit".

Is this really so important?  The Wikipedia article says that Filipino
is a version of Tagalog standardized by the constitution of 1987.
Wouldn't it be better to support a modern language used nowadays and
not just its older version?

Looking at this another way: what will an Emacs user expect to find in
Emacs as the supported language for the Philippines?

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.