Talk:Sugbuhanin

Verification

@Ysrael214 I can verify this to you myself. Here's a copy of the quote in the text: https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10151430009826520&set=a.10151430007671520 Myrnamyers (talk) 02:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@Myrnamyers Hello, I'm not the one who added the verification tag but it's good that you have a source this time for your claims. Please refer to Wiktionary:Obsolete and archaic terms whether or not to use obsolete or archaic. The tag to be used is NOT based on intelligibility but on word usage. The word obsolete, by its very definition means disused, unused, or forgotten. And the archaic tag in Wiktionary contexts refer to words that are still in used (especially in contemporary literature like in translations of the Bible or in historical movies, or some world of fiction set in some ancient past). In English, this would be closer to Shakespearean English, of which some are still , and could be in usage even today. An English sentence filled with archaic words could be “Mine heart lamenteth thy brethren.” The word mine here is archaic because today you would use my regardless of the following word starts with a vowel or ⟨h⟩. And brethren is still very used today. You could understand it sure but that's not the basis of archaic and obsolete. Tagalog example could be siya nawa, sumalangit, or even kalatas. These words a lot of people would still understand but you know these are just old. If dialectal words wont be considered, ngani can be archaic since it is used in Balagtas' Florante at Laura, still a widely known literature today. However, the word is still used in some dialects such as Marinduque and Mindoro so dialectal is the more proper label for it. Now, in the case of Sugbuhanin, please cite a contemporary literature that uses it in such a way to sound old. The 1616 manuscript about Juan Masolong is obviously not contemporary literature. If you manage to find a few that isn't just citing the old manuscript, then I'll agree with your “archaic” claims as you said the word is not obsolete. Thanks. Ysrael214 (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The other claims did not really need sources as they were the most reasonable ones, such that the competing claims were eliminable. I included a source in this entry mainly for a quote. I would just now like to ask, do you reckon that the label "obsolete" means that the word cannot be used anymore? Myrnamyers (talk) 11:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Myrnamyers The word obsolete means "unused", not "cannot be used anymore". This applies if the general population does not even know the word . Some may understand but generally won't use it because the word has not been in *general usage*, nor even at least in some dialect, for at least 500 years. (unlike Marindukihin, Quezonin, Lucenahin, Antimonanin, etc.)

To be honest, I'm okay removing the rfv tag someone else added since it's an obsolete term (though tbh the word should still adhere to Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion as written in Wiktionary:Obsolete and archaic terms: Policy for inclusion of old words). Ysrael214 (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Myrnamyers We only reflect the *current* status of the word, not of the uncertain future. If you like, start a trend in social media until it gets used commonly to mean the old word for Cebuano, then we'll escalate it to "archaic". Ysrael214 (talk) 19:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)