Talk:菲律賓話

RFV discussion: October–December 2023

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

菲律賓話

Chinese. Rfv-sense: Used other than figuratively or idiomatically: see 菲律賓／菲律宾 (Fēilǜbīn), 話／话 - is this any language spoken in the Philippines? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: It shouldn't be there. @Mlgc1998 What's the rationale for adding that definition? --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 11:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mar vin kaiser Whenever I hear "Hui-li̍p-pin-ōe" being used, they're never only referring to Tagalog. The same speakers using it also consider Bisaya and other regional languages in the Philippines as "Hui-li̍p-pin-ōe" as well, most likely because "hoan-á-ōe" (番仔話) is used the exact same way and the same speakers would also use "tāi-dio̍k-ōe" (大陸話) to refer to whichever language there is being talked about in mainland china, so the speakers would interpret 菲律賓話 in a (place)-(speech/language) manner. They answered to me after asking like "tinatanong niya anong language sa Philippines gamit mo". Some younger speakers I've asked don't think "Hui-li̍p-pin-ōe" exists independently of its parts, cuz I was told "walang ganoon" and went on to tell themselves "pilipino? language??", so the term itself is not used as much compared to "hoan-á-ōe" (番仔話), so it tends to come to be analyzed from it's more known component parts. Mlgc1998 (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mlgc1998: The way I hear it used is to refer to Filipino because 菲律賓 + 話 = Filipino. If the basis of the second definition is based on "interpretation", then it's not a definition, I would say. If the speakers you're asking doesn't think "Hui-li̍p-pin-ōe" exists independently of its parts, then their interpretation is not a definition, unless they use the expression itself in their vocabulary to express that definition, and not as a guess of what that word could mean. Understand? --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 02:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mar vin kaiser you just explained an interpretation and now you say another interpretation is not a definition, so does that mean your interpretation is not a definition? there are many words where the component parts define what the word means. that's why the Template:&lit exists. It can very well be interpreted as well as 菲律賓 ("Philippines") + 話 ("language") = "Philippine language". What happens when you come across someone who uses 菲律賓話 and they're actually referring to another language in ph that isn't Tagalog? Mlgc1998 (talk) 02:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mlgc1998: What I meant was, I think their response of "walang ganoon" means that it's not a lemma in their vocabulary. Therefore, their interpretation of what "Hui-li̍p-pin-ōe" would mean is just a guess and not an actual vocabulary on their part. You would have to find people (a group, a community) who actively uses the expression "Hui-li̍p-pin-ōe" to mean "another language in PH that isn't Tagalog" for it to be a definition. Otherwise, you would be just inventing your own definition into the word. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 02:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mar vin kaiser they didn't all say "walang ganoon", only some of the millennial speakers I asked. the older boomer ones living in metro manila knew about it as tagalog but when asked if it could mean bisaya, they considered it too and just explained the one asking if its bisaya would be asking in general about what language in the Philippines. Mlgc1998 (talk) 03:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mlgc1998: I think if there's not enough evidence, as in natural usage of the term in the general sense without any prompting questions, I would not include it. WT:CFI does not permit things that are just possibilities in theory. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

@Justinrleung they're not possibilities. did you even read what i said? I already presented the evidence, such as what native speakers say. This is a less frequently used term that native speakers treat just like 番仔話. Where is your evidence to the contrary? Mlgc1998 (talk) 06:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mlgc1998: I don't see clear evidence of usage. I just see you saying "The same speakers using it also consider Bisaya and other regional languages in the Philippines as 'Hui-li̍p-pin-ōe' as well" - but this does not illustrate their usage. How do you know they consider other languages to be Hui-li̍p-pin-ōe as well? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

@Justinrleung They answered to me after asking about other scenarios on other languages in the Philippines as "tinatanong niya anong language sa Philippines gamit mo" meaning "they're asking about what language in the Philippines are you using", so the person considers the term as referring to "languages in the Philippines" which they informed me of. Mlgc1998 (talk) 07:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

That sounds to me that you're forcing the meaning out of the word by using it in such a way that makes it mean that. It doesn't show natural usage. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 07:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mlgc1998: That's one of the disadvantages of speakers directly explaining what a word means and then us making follow-up questions, because it won't be an example of natural usage anymore. It becomes an interpretation of the person being asked. You have to catch the person using the word "Hui-li̍p-pin-ōe" to mean something other than "Filipino" for it to be in actual usage. Because words are always open to interpretation, that's why we have literature, but those interpretations aren't necessarily part of the definition in its natural usage, unless it enters frequent usage (natural use). --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 07:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mar vin kaiser the times i returned to edit that page were the times I remembered hearing the actual usage, but of course, i didn't memorize verbatim what they said the first time besides registering that they meant that. ive actually been waiting since yesterday as well about what some from other provinces that don't natively speak tagalog thinks about it but they havent responded yet. Mlgc1998 (talk) 07:35, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mlgc1998: Better to ask people whether they've heard it used also in that way. Because for example, if only that person uses it like that, it's not PH Hokkien, but his own idiolect. If there's doubt that it could be just his idiolect, we have to ask more people and see if it's generally used like that. Because for me, when I hear "Hui-li̍p-pin-ōe", it's referring to the national language. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 10:35, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mar vin kaiser I didn't say it was one person. I clearly asked multiple people. this term for most of them is a young lesser heard term that can be understood in many ways. another from davao told me his dad also interprets it either tagalog or bisaya they use there. Mlgc1998 (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

• RFV failed. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)