Talk:Bisaya

see information desk post in my edit history since my post here in the talk page is tagged unconstructive by bots

Confusing

The usage notes in Tagalog are super confusing. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 13:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Derived Terms

@Mlgc1998 Hey, just wondering where you got all these derived terms. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 15:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mar vin kaiser Whenever there's like a verb root, I check the Tagalog category list of prefixes, infixes, suffixes, and circumfixes, and then, I think about if each of these affixes will fit well as possible words and won't sound odd given the affix. For this entry, I was thinking about the different ways it could be conjugated to express how someone was to speak Bisaya or be described as Visayan. Mlgc1998 (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mlgc1998: Thanks for the reply. While there are many cases wherein we as Tagalog speakers can think whether a word can be affixed in such a way, just a couple of thoughts:

1. The thing is, the KWF, as far as I know, is recommending the affix to be separated with a dash, like "mag-Bisaya". So all of these terms have to be with a dash. At least if we follow KWF.
2. Sound change of affixes also before /b/, /ng/ becomes /m/, so in "pangbisaya", it should become "pam-", so "pam-Bisaya", something like that.
3. There are some iterations that you wrote here that don't make sense to me though. So the affix "mag-" is associated with "pag-" with duplicated first syllable. So "maglaro" and "paglalaro". While infix "-um" is associated with "pag-" with unduplicated first syllable. So "uminom" and "pag-inom". So here it should be "mag-Bisaya" and "pagbi-Bisaya".
4. To be honest though, in my opinion, this dash thing is hard to make consistent. I'm just trying to balance the KWF recommendation and what makes common sense. That's why I initially put there "mag-Bisaya", but I see you changed it to "magbisaya", which technically is the form I see it in older dictionaries.
5. This also begs the question though, how much of the derived terms that we put in Wiktionary should be derived by ourselves? Actually, all the derived terms I've put so far in Wiktionary are all found in dictionaries, so I've never derived it on my own. I only copy paste what already exists. I admit that a lot of what you made is technically correct, they're valid iterations that people would use. But I think sometimes we might affix it wrongly, especially the more complicated affixes, and sometimes, some iterations don't exist anywhere online, for example, "palabisaya" isn't found online and in published sources. So I think it's something worth discussing, because of course, in the spirit of Wiktionary, we only put here what we're sure exists.

Maybe you have some thoughts too. Feel free to reply. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 08:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mar vin kaiser I was wondering about that and confused as well what would look right with dashes, cuz sometimes it looks odd, but afaik, the idea I remember from school before with how dashes work with prefixes is that if the root starts with a vowel, it would definitely need a dash, but if it's a consonant, it usually doesn't have a dash, but sometimes it seems weird for certain roots, where we're used to seeing the root separately more clearly, like with pala- and taga-, often has dashes. I was wondering all the time as well when I check these affixes if I should put dashes when I put terms that use like for pala-. Maybe this happens only when the root is a proper noun? like for example, specific placenames when prefixed with taga-, but if it's not a specific placename and doesn't start with a vowel, it might be ok to not put dashes. Mlgc1998 (talk) 13:08, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Bisaya

@Kwékwlos Where did the etymology from bisara come from? How did it appear to be Bisaya? Ysrael214 (talk) 06:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

See https://zorc.net/RDZorc/TAGALOG/Wolff-1976-MalayBorrowingsInTagalog.pdf. Kwékwlos (talk) 11:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@Kwékwlos Saw the bisara becoming Philippine bisala (p. 360) but nothing about Proto-Bisaya or about Bisaya in general. Ysrael214 (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

PBis. */bisara/ had a shift of /r/ to /y/ in most areas. For an exception, compare Akeanon /bisaEa/, where /E/ < PBis. /l/ or /r/. Kwékwlos (talk) 13:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@Kwékwlos Yes, I'm aware of the Akeanon one. The "l" becomes "e" in many words like "eamok" (lamok), "eupad" (lupad). If ever, Bisaya coming from Sanskrit vicara (thought), needs evidence that Bisala or Bisara to mean Visayan as well right? It coming from "thought" seems to far fetched. Word bisala exists in Tagalog though. Seems like <y> -> <y> correspondence is more likely. Ysrael214 (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)