Talk:Bikol languages: Difference between revisions
Isa Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
→Rinconada Bicol: Added content Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start| |
||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Languages}} |
||
{{WikiProject Tambayan Philippines|importance=Mid}} |
|||
}} |
|||
==Merge== |
==Merge== |
||
| Line 16: | Line 18: | ||
Can anyone cross-check whether Lobel et al. (2000) really employ the term "Bisakol" for the three Visayan lects spoken in the Bikol area, and whether they really treat them as part of the Bikol languages? Unfortunately, I don't have access to the book. But I have serious doubts about it, since Lobel never states anything that comes close to it in other publications available to me, e.g. in his contribution to the [https://books.google.de/books?id=F2SRqDzB50wC&pg=PA158 Concise Encyclopedia of Languages of the World]. In the tree based on McFarland (1974), "Bisakol" was also falsely inserted as a branch of the Bikol languages, even though McFarland definitely treats them as Visayan languages in his dissertation. I suspect that the same distortion was done to the material from Lobel et al. (2000). –[[User:Austronesier|Austronesier]] ([[User talk:Austronesier|talk]]) 09:14, 17 June 2019 (UTC) |
Can anyone cross-check whether Lobel et al. (2000) really employ the term "Bisakol" for the three Visayan lects spoken in the Bikol area, and whether they really treat them as part of the Bikol languages? Unfortunately, I don't have access to the book. But I have serious doubts about it, since Lobel never states anything that comes close to it in other publications available to me, e.g. in his contribution to the [https://books.google.de/books?id=F2SRqDzB50wC&pg=PA158 Concise Encyclopedia of Languages of the World]. In the tree based on McFarland (1974), "Bisakol" was also falsely inserted as a branch of the Bikol languages, even though McFarland definitely treats them as Visayan languages in his dissertation. I suspect that the same distortion was done to the material from Lobel et al. (2000). –[[User:Austronesier|Austronesier]] ([[User talk:Austronesier|talk]]) 09:14, 17 June 2019 (UTC) |
||
== Please do not use the sample video of the speaker talking in Bicol == |
|||
Not just that it is not straight Bikol, it does not give value on the emphasis that this article is expressing. [[Special:Contributions/112.198.252.113|112.198.252.113]] ([[User talk:112.198.252.113|talk]]) 17:54, 7 May 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Rinconada Bicol == |
|||
Not included here is the Rinconada Bicol dialect including Iriga City dialect with similarities with surrounding provinces including but not limited to, Nabua dialect, Ba’ao dialectic, Bula dialect, Balatan dialect, Bato dialects Polangui dialect, and Buhi dialect with minor accents and meanings differences of words within mentioned as Rinconada Bicol dialects as one group. [[User:The Summum Bonum|The Summum Bonum]] ([[User talk:The Summum Bonum|talk]]) 16:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 16:54, 6 July 2024
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Merge
[edit]Let's get the discussion started whether or not to merge Languages of Bicol into Bikol languages.
- Support. Content and titles indicate that they are clearly the same. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Bikol Naga as "Standard"
[edit]Seriously, why is there a "(Standard Bikol)" after Coastal BiKol Naga? This is Naga-centric. English language has many dialects in Britain, but still none of them are considered "Standard". There is also American English, but it is considered as good as the English from Britain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.92.130.2 (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
[edit]There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Visayan languages which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Bisakol?
[edit]Can anyone cross-check whether Lobel et al. (2000) really employ the term "Bisakol" for the three Visayan lects spoken in the Bikol area, and whether they really treat them as part of the Bikol languages? Unfortunately, I don't have access to the book. But I have serious doubts about it, since Lobel never states anything that comes close to it in other publications available to me, e.g. in his contribution to the Concise Encyclopedia of Languages of the World. In the tree based on McFarland (1974), "Bisakol" was also falsely inserted as a branch of the Bikol languages, even though McFarland definitely treats them as Visayan languages in his dissertation. I suspect that the same distortion was done to the material from Lobel et al. (2000). –Austronesier (talk) 09:14, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Please do not use the sample video of the speaker talking in Bicol
[edit]Not just that it is not straight Bikol, it does not give value on the emphasis that this article is expressing. 112.198.252.113 (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Rinconada Bicol
[edit]Not included here is the Rinconada Bicol dialect including Iriga City dialect with similarities with surrounding provinces including but not limited to, Nabua dialect, Ba’ao dialectic, Bula dialect, Balatan dialect, Bato dialects Polangui dialect, and Buhi dialect with minor accents and meanings differences of words within mentioned as Rinconada Bicol dialects as one group. The Summum Bonum (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)