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

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 55529 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 55529 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: समीर सिंह Sameer Singh
 <lumarzeli30 <at> gmail.com>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: [PATCH] Add support for the Tagalog script
Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 03:43:54 +0530

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Tagalog script  is added to Emacs this time.

Please review the patch.
Thank You.

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

[0001-Add-support-for-the-Tagalog-script.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

Message #8 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 17:23:11 +0300

> From: समीर सिंह Sameer Singh
>  <lumarzeli30 <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 03:43:54 +0530
> 
> Tagalog script  is added to Emacs this time.

Thanks.

> diff --git a/etc/NEWS b/etc/NEWS
> index 4f6df48129..4ded787888 100644
> --- a/etc/NEWS
> +++ b/etc/NEWS
> @@ -800,6 +800,7 @@ corresponding language environments are:
>  **** Siddham script and language environment
>  **** Syloti Nagri script and language environment
>  **** Modi script and language environment
> +**** Tagalog script and language environment

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.

> +(set-language-info-alist
> + "Tagalog" '((charset unicode)
> +             (coding-system utf-8)
> +             (coding-priority utf-8)
> +             (input-method . "tagalog")
> +             (sample-text . "Baybayin (ᜊᜌ᜔ᜊᜌᜒᜈ᜔)	ᜃᜓᜋᜓᜐ᜔ᜆ")
> +             (documentation . "\
> +Philippine Language Tagalog is supported in this language environment.")))

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.

Message #11 received at 55529 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: समीर सिंह Sameer Singh
 <lumarzeli30 <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 55529 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#55529: [PATCH] Add support for the Tagalog script
Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 21:14:04 +0530

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

>
> 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.

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".

On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 7:53 PM Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> wrote:

> > From: समीर सिंह Sameer Singh
> >  <lumarzeli30 <at> gmail.com>
> > Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 03:43:54 +0530
> >
> > Tagalog script  is added to Emacs this time.
>
> Thanks.
>
> > diff --git a/etc/NEWS b/etc/NEWS
> > index 4f6df48129..4ded787888 100644
> > --- a/etc/NEWS
> > +++ b/etc/NEWS
> > @@ -800,6 +800,7 @@ corresponding language environments are:
> >  **** Siddham script and language environment
> >  **** Syloti Nagri script and language environment
> >  **** Modi script and language environment
> > +**** Tagalog script and language environment
>
> 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.
>
> > +(set-language-info-alist
> > + "Tagalog" '((charset unicode)
> > +             (coding-system utf-8)
> > +             (coding-priority utf-8)
> > +             (input-method . "tagalog")
> > +             (sample-text . "Baybayin (ᜊᜌ᜔ᜊᜌᜒᜈ᜔)     ᜃᜓᜋᜓᜐ᜔ᜆ")
> > +             (documentation . "\
> > +Philippine Language Tagalog is supported in this language
> environment.")))
>
> 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.
>

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

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?

Message #17 received at 55529 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: समीर सिंह Sameer Singh
 <lumarzeli30 <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 55529 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#55529: [PATCH] Add support for the Tagalog script
Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 22:01:28 +0530

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

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


Yes, I was confused about that too, the Unicode documents only mention
Tagalog and not Baybayin.
This wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagalog_(Unicode_block)
says that the Tagalog script is a variety of the Baybayin script.
But still in etc/HELLO, I have used Baybayin as the native name, should I
also change its English name? I was also thinking about changing the
input method from Tagalog to Baybayin, should I do that?

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?
>

Doesn't the modern language use the Roman script, instead of Baybayin?

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

Atleast according to me, correct me if I am  a filipino user will use the
Roman script for the filipino language, while writing Tagalog he may look
for Baybayin, which we
have provided under the Tagalog language environment.

On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 9:37 PM Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> wrote:

> > 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?
>

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #20 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: Sat, 21 May 2022 11:23:03 +0300

> From: समीर सिंह Sameer Singh <lumarzeli30 <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 22:01:28 +0530
> Cc: 55529 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
>  And if you are talking mainly about a script, then its name is
>  Baybayin, no?  Tagalog is a language, not a script, right?
> 
> Yes, I was confused about that too, the Unicode documents only mention Tagalog and not Baybayin.
> This wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagalog_(Unicode_block) says that the Tagalog script is a
> variety of the Baybayin script.
> But still in etc/HELLO, I have used Baybayin as the native name, should I also change its English name?

I think "Tagalog" as the English label in HELLO is okay, but the
script native name in parentheses should be Baybayin.

> I was also thinking about changing the
> input method from Tagalog to Baybayin, should I do that?

No, I think it should be 'tagalog', but the doc string should say that
it supports the Baybayin script.

>  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?
> 
> Doesn't the modern language use the Roman script, instead of Baybayin?
> 
>  Looking at this another way: what will an Emacs user expect to find in
>  Emacs as the supported language for the Philippines?
> 
> Atleast according to me, correct me if I am  a filipino user will use the Roman script for the filipino language,
> while writing Tagalog he may look for Baybayin, which we
> have provided under the Tagalog language environment.

OK, but please revise the doc strings and the comments to make sure we
use "Tagalog" for the language and "Baybayin" for the script (except
where we use the script name inherited from Unicode, which is actually
the name of the Unicode block).  AFAICT, the patch you posted wasn't
consistent in that regard.  And NEWS should mention both the language
and the script names.

Message #23 received at 55529 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: lumarzeli30 <at> gmail.com
Cc: 55529 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#55529: [PATCH] Add support for the Tagalog script
Date: Sat, 21 May 2022 12:38:46 +0300

> Cc: 55529 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Sat, 21 May 2022 11:23:03 +0300
> From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
> 
> >  Looking at this another way: what will an Emacs user expect to find in
> >  Emacs as the supported language for the Philippines?
> > 
> > Atleast according to me, correct me if I am  a filipino user will use the Roman script for the filipino language,
> > while writing Tagalog he may look for Baybayin, which we
> > have provided under the Tagalog language environment.
> 
> OK, but please revise the doc strings and the comments to make sure we
> use "Tagalog" for the language and "Baybayin" for the script (except
> where we use the script name inherited from Unicode, which is actually
> the name of the Unicode block).  AFAICT, the patch you posted wasn't
> consistent in that regard.  And NEWS should mention both the language
> and the script names.

Btw, what fonts are considered to be good nowadays for displaying
Tagalog/Baybayin?

Message #26 received at 55529 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: समीर सिंह Sameer Singh
 <lumarzeli30 <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 55529 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#55529: [PATCH] Add support for the Tagalog script
Date: Sat, 21 May 2022 20:38:05 +0530

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

>
> I think "Tagalog" as the English label in HELLO is okay, but the
> script native name in parentheses should be Baybayin.
>
> > I was also thinking about changing the
> > input method from Tagalog to Baybayin, should I do that?
>
> No, I think it should be 'tagalog', but the doc string should say that
> it supports the Baybayin script.
>
> >  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?
> >
> > Doesn't the modern language use the Roman script, instead of Baybayin?
> >
> >  Looking at this another way: what will an Emacs user expect to find in
> >  Emacs as the supported language for the Philippines?
> >
> > Atleast according to me, correct me if I am  a filipino user will use
> the Roman script for the filipino language,
> > while writing Tagalog he may look for Baybayin, which we
> > have provided under the Tagalog language environment.
>
> OK, but please revise the doc strings and the comments to make sure we
> use "Tagalog" for the language and "Baybayin" for the script (except
> where we use the script name inherited from Unicode, which is actually
> the name of the Unicode block).  AFAICT, the patch you posted wasn't
> consistent in that regard.  And NEWS should mention both the language
> and the script names.
>

Thanks I will do these.

Btw, what fonts are considered to be good nowadays for displaying
> Tagalog/Baybayin?
>

https://github.com/ctrlcctrlv/Noto-Sans-Tagalog/tree/master/dist
This is what worked best for me, the older Noto font did not have
characters for Ra, Alternative Ra, and Pamudpod, this one has it.

On Sat, May 21, 2022 at 3:08 PM Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> wrote:

> > Cc: 55529 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> > Date: Sat, 21 May 2022 11:23:03 +0300
> > From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
> >
> > >  Looking at this another way: what will an Emacs user expect to find in
> > >  Emacs as the supported language for the Philippines?
> > >
> > > Atleast according to me, correct me if I am  a filipino user will use
> the Roman script for the filipino language,
> > > while writing Tagalog he may look for Baybayin, which we
> > > have provided under the Tagalog language environment.
> >
> > OK, but please revise the doc strings and the comments to make sure we
> > use "Tagalog" for the language and "Baybayin" for the script (except
> > where we use the script name inherited from Unicode, which is actually
> > the name of the Unicode block).  AFAICT, the patch you posted wasn't
> > consistent in that regard.  And NEWS should mention both the language
> > and the script names.
>
> Btw, what fonts are considered to be good nowadays for displaying
> Tagalog/Baybayin?
>

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #29 received at 55529 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: समीर सिंह Sameer Singh
 <lumarzeli30 <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 55529 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#55529: [PATCH] Add support for the Tagalog script
Date: Sat, 21 May 2022 21:13:25 +0530

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Here is the new patch, Please review it.

On Sat, May 21, 2022 at 8:38 PM समीर सिंह Sameer Singh <
lumarzeli30 <at> gmail.com> wrote:

> I think "Tagalog" as the English label in HELLO is okay, but the
>> script native name in parentheses should be Baybayin.
>>
>> > I was also thinking about changing the
>> > input method from Tagalog to Baybayin, should I do that?
>>
>> No, I think it should be 'tagalog', but the doc string should say that
>> it supports the Baybayin script.
>>
>> >  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?
>> >
>> > Doesn't the modern language use the Roman script, instead of Baybayin?
>> >
>> >  Looking at this another way: what will an Emacs user expect to find in
>> >  Emacs as the supported language for the Philippines?
>> >
>> > Atleast according to me, correct me if I am  a filipino user will use
>> the Roman script for the filipino language,
>> > while writing Tagalog he may look for Baybayin, which we
>> > have provided under the Tagalog language environment.
>>
>> OK, but please revise the doc strings and the comments to make sure we
>> use "Tagalog" for the language and "Baybayin" for the script (except
>> where we use the script name inherited from Unicode, which is actually
>> the name of the Unicode block).  AFAICT, the patch you posted wasn't
>> consistent in that regard.  And NEWS should mention both the language
>> and the script names.
>>
>
> Thanks I will do these.
>
> Btw, what fonts are considered to be good nowadays for displaying
>> Tagalog/Baybayin?
>>
>
> https://github.com/ctrlcctrlv/Noto-Sans-Tagalog/tree/master/dist
> This is what worked best for me, the older Noto font did not have
> characters for Ra, Alternative Ra, and Pamudpod, this one has it.
>
> On Sat, May 21, 2022 at 3:08 PM Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> wrote:
>
>> > Cc: 55529 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
>> > Date: Sat, 21 May 2022 11:23:03 +0300
>> > From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
>> >
>> > >  Looking at this another way: what will an Emacs user expect to find
>> in
>> > >  Emacs as the supported language for the Philippines?
>> > >
>> > > Atleast according to me, correct me if I am  a filipino user will use
>> the Roman script for the filipino language,
>> > > while writing Tagalog he may look for Baybayin, which we
>> > > have provided under the Tagalog language environment.
>> >
>> > OK, but please revise the doc strings and the comments to make sure we
>> > use "Tagalog" for the language and "Baybayin" for the script (except
>> > where we use the script name inherited from Unicode, which is actually
>> > the name of the Unicode block).  AFAICT, the patch you posted wasn't
>> > consistent in that regard.  And NEWS should mention both the language
>> > and the script names.
>>
>> Btw, what fonts are considered to be good nowadays for displaying
>> Tagalog/Baybayin?
>>
>

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

[0001-Add-support-for-the-Tagalog-script.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

Message #34 received at 55529-done <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-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#55529: [PATCH] Add support for the Tagalog script
Date: Sun, 22 May 2022 10:24:55 +0300

> From: समीर सिंह Sameer Singh <lumarzeli30 <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Sat, 21 May 2022 21:13:25 +0530
> Cc: 55529 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> Here is the new patch, Please review it.

Thanks, installed.

Message #37 received at 55529-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: समीर सिंह Sameer Singh
 <lumarzeli30 <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 55529-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#55529: [PATCH] Add support for the Tagalog script
Date: Sun, 22 May 2022 12:58:41 +0530

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Thanks!

Also here is the Tagalog font, in case you missed it.
https://github.com/ctrlcctrlv/Noto-Sans-Tagalog/tree/master/dist

रवि, 22 मई 2022, 12:55 pm को Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> ने लिखा:

> > From: समीर सिंह Sameer Singh <lumarzeli30 <at> gmail.com>
> > Date: Sat, 21 May 2022 21:13:25 +0530
> > Cc: 55529 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> >
> > Here is the new patch, Please review it.
>
> Thanks, installed.
>

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Previous Next

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