Chapter 1

Ating Panginoon Sisu Kitu:

The Tagalog Baybayin Text of the Doctrina Christiana of 1593 and

the Legend of Unreadability

Ramon Guillermo, Myfel Paluga and Vernon R. Totanes

Der historische Index der Bilder sagt nämlich nicht nur,

daß sie einer bestimmten Zeit angehören, er sagt vor

allem, daß sie erst in einer Zeit zur Lesbarkeit kommen.

(The historical index of images does not only say that

these belong to a particular time, it says above all, that

these will come to be readable only in a particular time.)

-Walter Benjamin

Introduction

This study proposes two major theses:

1) It attempts to qualify or even refute the notion that texts written in the

traditional Tagalog baybayin script are necessarily difficult or even impossible

to read;

6
 2) It makes a renewed assertion of a corollary hypothesis regarding the strong

possibility of a relationship between Bugis-Makasar and Philippine writing

systems.

The difficulty which a reader of a text in the ancient Philippine writing system called

baybayin, is said to face is almost legendary (Figure 1). This is said to be due mainly

to its inability to represent stand-alone consonants such that one set of syllable

sequences could be read in various ways. Fr. Gaspar de San Agustin gives the oft-

cited example of LiLi (li-li) which could be read as lili, lilim, lilip, lilis, lilit, limlim, liclic,

liglig. etc. (Lumbera 2001, 25-26). One had to supply missing consonants actively

while going along a text and deciding upon the interpretation of homographs

(different words with the same form). This obviously thorny problem is further

compounded by the fact that baybayin is written in scriptio continua, without spaces

between words, a trait which it shares with other Southeast Asian writing systems

originating from India. (To differentiate these writing systems from alphabets and

syllabaries which follow quite different principles, the Bugis writing specialist

Campbell Macknight suggests the use of the word ‘aksary’ (plural: aksaries), from

aksara, the Sanskrit term for character.) Abundant testimony to the difficulty of

reading such a script can be gathered from friar accounts which often describe the

process of reading a baybayin text as involving ‘faltering,’ ‘pure guesswork’ and

‘groping.’ More contemporary Philippine writers have also expounded on this

problematic and incomplete character of the Philippine aksary. The literary scholar

Bienvenido Lumbera wrote for example that:

7
 Considering the problems created for the reader by the syllabary, it is unlikely

that it was used at all as a medium for written literature. Chirino asserts that it

was used solely for writing letters. If it was used at all for literary purposes, it

must have been to record oral lore, with the transcript serving as some kind of

crib during performances or during transfer from adult to child. Anything

written directly in the syllabary without having lived in oral tradition would have

become totally incomprehensible to anybody but the author. For only one

familiar with the oral life of the composition could make sense out of the

cryptic syllabic combinations. (2001, 25-26)

Lumbera then contemplates that literature in the native script may have been

impossible (2001, 26). Faced with a seemingly impenetrable series of ‘cryptic

syllabic combinations,’ Lumbera’s skepticism was to a degree justified, but it cannot

explain the actual existence of Mangyan poetry, called ambahan, which up to the

present times is written in such an ‘imperfect’ script. Nevertheless, the absolute

zenith of this notion of ‘impossibility’ of reading a baybayin text is attained by the

historian Vicente Rafael. According to Rafael,

The inevitability of ‘faltering’ as one reads Tagalog script, as Blancas

remarked, obstructed the passage of determinate thought that was believed to

be contained within the hierarchy voice/writing. The ambivalence inherent in

Tagalog script tended to defer sense in favor of the sensation of sound as one

slid from one signifier to another. This tendency is further suggested by the

very word for the script: baybayin means to learn the alphabet and spell a

word, but it also refers to the seacoast, or the act of coasting along a river.

8
 This sense of the word highlights the seeming randomness involved in the

reading of the script as one floats, as it were, over a stream of sounds elicited

by the characters. Perhaps this was why the natives, as Spanish writers and

present-day historians have observed, showed little interest in employing the

local syllabary for the ‘serious’ preservation of historical and literary texts.

(Rafael 1988, 49)

After this mostly irrelevant poetic reflection on the meaning of the word baybayin, he

then goes on to a puzzling rhapsodic overture on the diacritic which specifies vowel

endings in the baybayin system which is called kurlit (more commonly, kudlit) which

seems to have nothing to do with the actual thing being discussed,

The kurlit or diacritical mark contributes less to the fixing of signifiers to

signifieds than to the proliferation of signifying possibilities. This is not

surprising in light of the fact that the Tagalog word kurlit, defined by the

Spaniards as acento (accent), also means in Tagalog ‘a minor scratch’ or a

‘small wound.’ Thus a kurlit not only marks the boundary where writing is

given up to voice, that is, the line that by giving value or stress to a syllable

determines the sound of the signifier, thus delimiting the range of signifieds

that can be attached to it; as a ‘scratch’ or ‘wound,’ it also calls forth a

multiplicity of sounds and consequently other signifieds. (1988, 48)

To clarify matters, it ought to be emphasized that a kudlit above a B, does not give

rise to a ‘multiplicity of sounds’ as Rafael fancies, it only specifies that such a symbol

bi should be read as bi/be. On the other hand, a kudlit below this symbol bu means it

9
should be pronounced bo/bu. Rafael then ventures to assert, while persistently

pursuing his purely extraneous philosophical predilections, against all known facts

that in the baybayin writing system, ‘written characters were not expected to point to

a specific sound’ (1988, 48). With his relentless discourse on the supposed traits of

the baybayin which he describes in such terms as ‘randomness,’ ‘pure guessing,’

‘relative undecipherability,’ ‘incomplete and unintelligible,’ ‘open-ended’ process of

signification, Rafael seals the fate of the baybayin as an impractical and useless

writing system. In contrast with Rafael’s unbounded, and ill-informed speculations,

Fr. Alcina’s (2005) account from 1668 of the baybayin system is much more nuanced

and informative. He wrote,

Todas estas letras, o caracteres, sin punto alguno, suenan con a, v.g., ba, da,

ga, etc., y poniéndoles encima un punto suenan i o e, y si se pone abajo

suenan o o u… de modo que no usan de letras vocales o comienzan por

vocal; ni tampoco de letras consonantes, o intermedias, o finales, porque,

cuando hay dos consonantes, excepto en la letra nga, lo que no hiere se

suple. Y lo mismo es en todas las finales, de modo que se puede decir que su

leer es adivinar más que pronunciar la escrito, que los que no están diestros

en suplir las consonantes que algunos, y más las mujeres, leen con destreza

y sin tropezar, van marcando cuanto leen y adivinando, y aun errando más

que acertando; y por esta causa, aunque es fácil de aprender su modo de

escribir, es muy difícil el leer, porque, como hemos dicho, lo más es suplir. Y

así, para más claridad tras cada palabra suelen poner estas dos rayas que

sirven de distinguir las palabras y de hacer más facil la lectura; que, siendo

10
 seguido todo y sin estas divisiones, aunque algunos escriben sin ellas, se

confundieran mucho más. (50)

(All the letters, or characters without any dot are sounded with an a, that is,

ba, da, ga, etc. When the dot is placed above them, they are sounded with an

i or e; when it is placed below, they are sounded with an o or a u… As a

result, they do not employ vowel characters except when two vowels come

together, or [when the words] begin with a vowel. Nor [do they use]

consonants whether intermediate or final because when there are two

consonants, except in the particle ng, whatever is not expressed is implied.

Similarly, with all the final letters in such a way that one may say that their

reading consists in guessing rather than in pronouncing what is actually

written. Those who are not skillful in supplying the consonants which some,

especially women, read with proficiency and without stumbling and do on

adroitly reading and guessing it – more often erring than rendering it properly.

For this reason, even though it is easy to learn their way of writing, it is very

difficult to read it because as we have said, most of it [i.e. the characters

which are not expressed] must be [quickly] supplied [by the reader]. Thus, for

greater clarity, they are accustomed to place after each word these two lines

which serve to distinguish the words and thus make the reading easier. And if

all were to be continuous and without these separations [although some write

without them] they would still be more confusing.) (51)

Despite his keen observations on the seeming deficiencies of the baybayin system,

Alcina admits that there are those who read it ‘with proficiency and without stumbling’

11
(con destreza y sin tropezar). For his part, another friar, Padre Chirino confirms the

same observation with his comment that, ‘he, who reads it, supplies with much

adroitness and facility the consonants which are lacking (el, que lee, suple con

mucha destreza, i facilidad las consonantes, que faltan) (1890, 41). How could such

adroitness and proficiency (destreza) be possible if the baybayin system were

inherently unreliable as a system for transmitting recorded language? The linguist

Jean-Paul Potet writes, ‘This means that despite its deficiencies, a baybayin text is in

general comprehensible for someone with the habit of reading it. Versification and

the use of formulas facilitated reading’ (Cela signifie qu’en dépit de ses

insuffisances, un texte en baybáyin était en général compréhensible pour qui en

avait l’habitude. La versification et l’utilisation de formules toutes faites en facilitaient

la lecture) (2012b, 38). However, versification and formulaic language by themselves

seem insufficient to explain how a baybayin text could be read with a sufficient

degree of accuracy. The answer lies perhaps in Alcina’s mention of the baybayin

punctuation in which he says two lines are placed after each word to distinguish

them from each other. Without these lines, he says, matters would be even more

confusing. This observation might be the key to correcting the widespread legend of

the baybayin’s alleged ‘unreadability.’

The lines which Alcina referred to are called ‘danda’ (stick). This is the main

punctuation mark of the classical Sanskrit writing system (Potet 2012b, 56-57).

These appear sometimes as single danda or, more often as double danda, two

vertical lines, in baybayin texts. Alcina’s very practical insight into how these lines

can ‘reduce confusion’ in reading is something which deserves further looking into.

However, the topic of baybayin punctuation has not been given the attention it

12
merits, Juan Francisco, in his classic work on Philippine palaeography, allots only a

cursory paragraph for this topic (1973, 68). (This line of investigation was in fact

tangentially suggested to RG by conversations with Benedict Anderson on the

unusual differences he observed between some punctuation usages in Spain and

Latin America.) The longest and most elaborate existing authentic baybayin text, the

Doctrina Christiana (1593) allows the researcher a unique opportunity to study this

topic in depth.

Some Philological Notes on the Doctrina Christiana (1593)

The DC has often been called the first book printed in the Philippine archipelago.

While the evidence is clear that it was printed in 1593, it is uncertain whether the

Spanish-Tagalog-baybayin DC was printed first or another book known to have been

issued in Manila that same year— Hsin-k‘o seng-shih Kao-mu Hsien chuan Wu-chi

t’ien-chu cheng-chiao chen-chuan shih-lu (A printed edition of the Veritable record of

the authentic tradition of the true faith in the Infinite God, by the religious master

Kao-mu Hsien) (Liu 2004), or the Shih-lu, as it is commonly called. The Shih-lu,

which was written wholly in Chinese and contains theological discussions and

explanations of Western scientific concepts, has a strong claim to being the first

book printed in the Philippines, but it has been largely ignored by Filipino scholars,

perhaps because it is neither easily readable nor obviously relevant to Philippine

culture. Initially, it was Trinidad Pardo de Tavera (1893, 8-9) who cast doubt on the

possibility of any book at all being printed in Manila in 1593 as there was as yet no

printing press in the whole archipelago at the time. However, this was strongly

disputed by the Spaniard Wenceslao Retana based on the available historical

13
records. In the absence of additional evidence, it is unlikely that the question of

primacy can be answered satisfactorily. It will be enough, however, to state that the

DC was the first book printed in the Philippines containing texts written in an

indigenous writing system (Totanes 2008). Nevertheless, Dorotheus Schilling argues

quite convincingly, that given the technology available at the time, the Chinese book

must have been printed first,

Wahrscheinlich wurde aber zuerst der chinesische hergestellt, weil für das

Schneiden der chinesischen Schriftzeichen auf Holzplatten sich leichter eine

geübte Kraft fand als für das Schneiden der lateinischen und tagalischen

Buchstaben. Mit jenen hat man wohl einen Versuch gemacht, und als dieser

gelang, auch das schwierigere zweite Werk in Angriff genommen und

vollendet. (1937, 215)

(But the Chinese one was probably produced first. Because the carving of

Chinese characters on wooden boards could more easily find skilled workers

than that for the carving of Latin and Tagalog letters. An attempt had probably

been made with the latter, and having been successful, the more difficult

second book was taken up and finished.)

Before looking more intensively into the baybayin texts of the Doctrina Christiana,

some preliminary philological notes might be useful. The only known existing copy of

this book is in the US Library of Congress in the Lessing J. Rosenwald Collection

(Wolf 1947). Figure 2 shows the frontispiece of the Tagalog Doctrina Christiana (DC)

with the year of publication (1593) and full title. Potet identifies the original model for

14
it as Martin de Ayala’s Doctrina Christiana en lengua Arauiga y Castellana (Valencia,

1566) (Potet 2012b, 87). The DC is made up of twelve discrete texts: 1) the Pater

Noster; 2) the Ave Maria; 3) the Credo; 4) the Salve Regina; 5) the articles of faith; 6)

the Deuteronomy; 7) the Commandments of the Church; 8) the Seven Sacraments;

9) the Seven Capital Sins; 10) the Fourteen Duties of the Christian; 11) the

Confessionaire; 12) the Questionnaire.

Sigrid Steinberg’s Five Hundred Years of Printing (1974) contained a striking

passage on this remarkable book in the Tagalog language. According to her,

By about 1480 the block-books had outlived their usefulness and were no

longer produced [in Europe]. An interesting late-comer, however, appeared in

1593 in Manila, the first book printed in the Philippine Islands, a bilingual

Doctrina Christiana in Spanish and Tagalog, is a block-book. The type was

probably designed by one of the Dominican missionaries; but the execution

lay in the hands of Chinese craftsmen to whom the block-book had for

centuries been the only known medium of printing. Here, then, East and West

meet bodily, 150 years after their amalgamation in Gutenberg's office. (156)

The context of this statement was Steinberg's earlier account of how Gutenberg had

‘amalgamated’ or synthesized the ancient technologies of block-printing and paper

production from China with his own inventions of moveable metal types and printers'

ink. The case of the DC, wherein a Chinese printer had been commissioned by

Spanish friars to produce a book in the Latin alphabet, was therefore a kind of

strange and seemingly anachronistic ‘Western’ return to the origins of printing

15
technology. The fact that the friars had to print a text in a script for which, at the time,

no existing typefaces existed meant that there was actually no practical alternative to

block-printing and that the latter was actually the best technology available for the

desired purpose. The DC is therefore also the direct ‘bodily’ collision of what may be

considered one of the last and most distant diffusions and adaptations of Indian

writings systems into island Southeast Asia and the Latin script which the Spanish

colonizers had brought with them into Asia.

Edwin Wolf's (1947) seminal study on the complex bibliographical history of the DC

which was published along with the facsimile of the text in 1947 has not been

equaled, although his lack of Tagalog was probably what prevented him from

undertaking a truly philological edition. The linguist Andrew Gonzalez’s (1985) study

on the lexicon of the DC is perhaps the best study which has been done so far on

the DC as a text. He divided the lexical components of the DC into: (1) borrowed

Sanskrit words, (2) ‘native’ Austronesian terms, (3) calques and (4) direct borrowings

from Spanish. Gonzalez, however, completely ignored the baybayin text in his

discussion and confined his analysis to the accompanying Tagalog Latin alphabet

transliteration. The basic problem of determining the differences and discrepancies

between the Tagalog Latin transliteration and the baybayin text clearly did not arise

as an issue for him. The orthographic disparities between the transliteration and

baybayin text were likewise ignored. The unique features of the baybayin text also

went unnoticed. In short, he did not look into the DC as a valuable object for the

study of the baybayin system of writing. His study is nevertheless filled with

interesting observations into the problems of translating ‘Western’ philosophical and

religious concepts into the Tagalog language. He also observed that the DC testifies

16
to the fact that the spoken Tagalog of today hardly seems to have changed in any

drastic way (in lexical terms) since the late 16th century. Another study by Delfin

Canceran (1993) is a rather cursory theologically oriented work which delved

haphazardly into the analysis of untranslated words, significant meaning slippages

and changes in grammatical mood. Like Gonzales, he completely ignored the

baybayin text and relied exclusively on the Tagalog transliteration into the Latin

alphabet.

It bears repeating therefore that the DC is a bilingual and biscript text. It begins with

the Spanish text in Latin script which is then followed by the Tagalog text in Latin

script, finally, it features the Tagalog text in baybayin. Figure 3 shows the

composition of all 76 pages in terms of language and script. Figure 4 excerpts all the

baybayin texts in DC. Figure 5 is a collection of some well designed initial capitals of

baybayin symbols.

Transcription A is the first ever full transcription and interpretation of the DC

baybayin text. Page and line numbers are indicated before each line. Syllables are

separated by a dash (-), danda punctuation is represented by two vertical line

symbols (||), while a single slash (/) functions as a word separator. Each section

separated by a double danda is counted as a segment. The first of two numbers

within brackets is the segment number consecutively numbered while the second

numeral is the number of syllables within the segment. Imputed consonants in final

and medial positions are in brackets. (Although the vowels ‘i’ and ‘u’ are consistently

used in the transcription, these can be replaced with ‘e’ and ‘o’ respectively where

appropriate.)

17
At the right side of the transcription of the baybayin text is a transcription of the

Tagalog text in Latin script rearranged according to the line breaks of baybayin text.

Figure 6 is a listing of the typographical errors in the baybayin text. The most

interesting of these seems to be the one on page 45 line 8 where the ‘sa’ in the word

‘kasalanan’ suddenly takes on a ‘Visayan’ form (Ezguerra 1747).

There are divergences between the texts in baybayin and Latin scripts. Although the

two texts mirror each other for the most part, some differences prove that neither is a

completely faithful version of the other. Some examples could be cited: for instance,

on page 69 line 14, where the baybayin text says that a Christian is ‘a person who

has been baptized’ (binyagan na tawo), the Tagalog text in Latin script says simply

that a Christian is a ‘baptized (one)’ (binyagan). The Spanish text which says that a

Christian is ‘a person who has been baptized’ (el hombre baptizado) is closer to the

baybayin text. On page 73 line 11-12 one reads in the baybayin text, ‘like other

animals’ (para nang sa ibang hayop), in the Latin text, ‘like in animals’ (para nang sa

hayop), while the Spanish text says, ‘as with other animals’ (como en los otros

animals) which is closer to the baybayin version. On page 75 lines 3-4, the baybayin

text simply mentions ‘His Holiness the Pope’ (Santo Papa), the Latin text says ‘His

Holiness the Pope in Rome’ (Sancto Papa sa Roma), while the Spanish version is

‘the pope in Rome’ (el papa del Roma). These differences prove that although a

single basis may probably have existed for both Tagalog texts in baybayin and Latin

script, the writer of the baybayin text sometimes chose to render certain phrases

closer to the Spanish original. The baybayin transcriber therefore had an

independent access to the Spanish original which may mean that he was Spanish.

18
The DC contains rendering of some of the earliest Spanish loanwords in Tagalog

(Table 1). ‘Jesus Christ’ is rendered as ‘si-su-ki-tu’, ‘Santa Maria virgen’ is

transcribed as ‘sa-ta-ma-di-ya-bi-si’, ‘San Miguel Archangel’ is spelled ‘sa-mi-gi-a-ka-

si,’ ‘gracia’ (grace) is written as ‘ga-da-si-ya’, ‘impiyerno’ (hell) is ‘i-pi-nu’ and ‘diyos’

(God) is ‘di-yu.’ ‘I-pi-nu’ and ‘a-ka-si’ obviously do not mean anything in Tagalog and

could only be understood as empty tokens standing for something and yet lacking a

referent. ‘Virgin,’ spelled as ‘bi-si,’ was particularly difficult since the concept itself

had no exact Tagalog equivalent (Gonzalez 31). These syllable combinations would

definitely take some getting used to for the Tagalog reader.

The DC vocabulary shows a wealth of Tagalog/Austronesian (Table 2) categories

like ‘tao’ (person), ‘kaluluwa’ (spirit), ‘loob’ (the metaphorical ‘inside’ of a person) and

‘bayan’ (nation, people). Malay and Arab categories like ‘hukum’ (judge) (Potet

2012a, 136), ‘dalamhati’ (sadness), ‘luwalhati’ (grace), ‘sala’ (sin), ‘pintakasi’ (Mal.

‘pinta,’ ask for, and ‘kasih,’ love) as well as words of ultimate Sanskrit derivation like

‘bahala,’ ‘sangpalataya’ (Mal. ‘kepercayaan,’ Sanskrit ‘pratyaya,’ faith),

The uses of words such as ‘habilin’ (to remain), ‘dini’ (here), ‘yari’ (this) and ‘dili’

(no/not) reflect usages or a degree of ubiquity quite different from general

contemporary Filipino/Tagalog language usage. The phrase in DC, ‘Nagkasala aku

sa panimdim, sa pagwika at sa paggawa’ (I have sinned in thought, word and deed)

while strikingly modern reflects an archaic usage of ‘panimdim’ (thought) where the

more common word today would be ‘kaisipan’ (thought). Spellings of some words in

DC also reflect dialectal variations in pronunciation, for example, whereas the

19
common modern pronunciation for the word for ‘two’ is ‘dalawa,’ this is pronounced

as ‘dalwa’ in DC. The Tagalog word for ‘body’ which is today syllabicated as ‘ka-ta-

wan’, is rendered in the DC as ‘ka-taw-an.’

The following lines which explain what ‘Diyos’ is, intimates a sense of terrifying

infinity without beginning and without end (Gonzalez 24-25):

Ano kaya ang diyos|

ang unang mula|

ang kauna-unahan sa lahat|

ang maygawa sa lahat|

siya’y walang pinagmulan |

walang kahangganan|

(What can God be?

The first beginning

The first of all things

The creator of everything

He has no beginning

He has no end.)

The DC is an excellent example of a baybayin text. It is generally consistent in its

features and a model of clarity. It does not seem to be at all the work of an ‘untrained

recorder’ as Francisco alleged (1973, 43).

20
The Baybayin ‘Double Danda’ Punctuation

For the purposes of the current study, the baybayin text will be divided into the

following units: the smallest unit is the syllable, the next unit is the word which may

be made up of one or more syllables, the intermediate unit, which can be called a

‘segment,’ is a cluster of syllables sandwiched between a definite start and end

which are usually indicated by the use of the double danda, and finally, the largest

unit is a group of continuous segments which may be set off from each other as

sections within the whole text. The interpreted DC text in Tagalog written in baybayin

has an approximate 3948 total syllables (counted as baybayin symbols) and a total

word count of approximately 1804 tokens (total number of words in the text or word

count) and 395 types (total number of unique words) with a relatively high lexical

complexity of 0.21 (types/tokens) for a Tagalog text.

In terms of length, 30% of all the word forms (or 123 unique words) are just two

syllables in length (Figure 7). Words two to four syllables in length make up 82% of

all word forms in DC.

On the other hand, although words one syllable in length make up only 4% of the

types, these same words repeated throughout the text at an average rate of 36.5

times make up 34% of the total tokens of DC. These are generally the frequently

repeating Tagalog function words. The two syllable words which make up 30% of the

tokens constitute an even greater 37% of the types with an average rate of repetition

of 5.4 times per word. The remaining words of three to eight syllables only repeat at

an average of roughly twice per word. Due to the fact that it is theoretically possible

21
for a unique syllable sequence to represent more than one interpreted word, the

number of homographs can be derived by subtracting the number of types in the

baybayin text in raw syllable form of around 395 types (Table 3) from the final

interpreted text with around 435 types (Table 4). The number of homographs is

therefore 40 (Table 5). Around 10% of all the types of the baybayin text wordlist are

therefore homographs. 36 of these homographs are just 1 or 2 syllables long.

Moreover, 66% of these homographs are just a combination of the original word with

the Tagalog particle ‘-ng.’ Indeed, it is a fact that the longer a syllable sequence is

which forms a word, the more unique it is, and the less the possibility of reading it in

different ways.

Moving on to the level of the segment bounded by double dandas, segment length

can at first be measured in terms of number of words within each segment or by the

number of syllables it contains. The great majority, or 75% of the total number of 607

segments, are just two to four words long. There are only four seven word segments,

three eight word segments, two nine word segments and just one 10 word segment

(Figure 8). In terms of number of syllables, there are around 100 segments each with

a length of only four and five syllables. In fact, 62% of the total number of segments

are composed of just four to seven syllables (Figure 9). Figure 10 shows the

segment length by syllable, moving consecutively from the first to the last segment of

the DC text. It can be observed that the segment length just varies around the mean

segment length of 6.5 syllables throughout the text. Given that most of the segments

in DC are seven syllables and below, and that the majority of these are made up of

just two to four words, it could be surmised that there are definite numbers of

patterns of syllable clustering based on word divisions within each segment in the

22
DC text. For example, a four syllable segment could be the phrase ‘ang di banal’

(what is not holy) which can then be converted to syllabic form as ‘a di ba-na’ and

represented in terms of syllable length per word as ‘1-1-2.’ This pattern of syllable

distribution per word is not unique in DC, other segments which share the same

pattern are, for example, ‘at kung pista’ (and when there is a feast), ‘at may buhay’

(and there is life), ‘at may loob’ (and with conscience) etc.

The segment length in DC which exhibits empirically the most variety of such

syllables-per-word distribution patterns is seven (Figure 11) with 27 patterns in all

applied to the 91 seven syllable segments which make up DC. On the other hand,

segments which are four syllables long only occur with a relatively monotonous

repetition of six patterns though there are approximately 100 four syllable segments

in DC. These four syllable word clustering patterns are as follows: (1-1-2), (1-2-1),

(1-3), (2-2), (3-1), (4). Figure 12 shows the most frequently occurring syllables per

word distribution patterns in DC. The most frequent pattern which appears in 43

segments is four syllables long with a pattern of (1-3). Examples of this are ‘ang

nauna’ (the first), ‘ang bautismu’ (the baptism), ‘ang ikatlu’ (the third), ‘ang ikanim’

(the sixth) etc. The majority of are made up of nouns introduced by the word ‘ang’

(the). The second most frequent pattern are five syllable long segments with a

pattern of (1-4): ‘ang ikalima’ (the fifth), ‘ang kasalanan’ (sin), ‘ang kalibugan’ (lust),

‘nang kaluluwa’ (of the spirit) etc. The next most frequent is four syllables with a

pattern of (2-2): ‘amin sisu’ (amen Jesus), ‘diyus-ama’ (God the Father), ‘ina natin’

(our Mother) etc. The most frequently occurring pattern for seven syllable segments

is the pattern (1-4-2) with 15 appearances: ‘ang pagkadiyus niya’ (His Godliness),

‘ang pagkatawu niya’ (His human-ness), ‘ang sanglibutang bayan’ (all peoples) etc.

23
Tables 6 and 7 shows that many of the segments are repeated as a whole or can

even be considered formulaic sequences. The following for example are some

repeating segments bounded by danda: ‘amin sisu’ (amen Jesus) (7 times), ‘yaring

diyus’ (this God) (6), ‘ang ikalwa’ (the second) (6), ‘mapadating man saan’ (wherever

it comes to) (3).

It can be observed empirically that four syllable long segments in DC are relatively

restricted in the number of syllables-per-word distribution patterns. What can be

surmised as the relative ease of parsing such four syllable segments however is

attained at the expense of what appears to be a very limited flexibility of expression.

As segments increase in syllable lengths, syllable word patterns become more

flexible and variable, which in turn creates greater complexity. Table 8 demonstrates

that long 15-20 syllable long segments demonstrate a higher degree of pattern

complexity. The median segment length in DC of 6.5 syllables and the actual

ubiquity of seven syllable segments in this particular text may represent an example

of an empirical compromise between readability and flexibility.

Reading is further facilitated, as Potet had surmised, by the fact that a lot of the

segments start with formulaic beginnings right after the danda. One fourth of all 607

segments starts off with ‘ang’ (152), 21% start off with the words: ‘nang,’ ‘at,’ ‘sa,’

and ‘sumangpalataya’ (to have faith), 63% of all segments in DC have segment

beginnings which repeat at least 5 times throughout the text (Table 9). At the back

end of the segment, 5% of all of these end with ‘diyus’ (God) while 53% of all

segments end with words which repeat at least five times at the segment end

position (Table 10). The most frequently occurring syllable sequence with a minimum

24
length of four symbols (including the danda) and longer is ‘||a i ka’ or ‘ang ika-’ (the

nth) with 33 appearances, the next most frequent are the sequences for ‘panginoon’

(lord) with 22, ‘ating panginoon’ (our lord) with 20, ‘kasalanan’ (sin) with 20, ‘sisu kitu’

(Jesus Christ) with 18 and so on and so forth (Table 11).

Conventional notions of the reading process based on the dominant Western

conception of reading a text by means of a sequential left to right process of word

form recognition may not exactly fit the process by which a baybayin reader

comprehends a text. The process of text comprehension of a baybayin reader may

be represented hypothetically as follows:

a) The reader fixes on the starting danda of a segment

b) The reader tries to formulate a plausible reading for the initial syllable clusters

of the segment;

c) The reader then scans the whole segment for plausible readings of the

middle up to the final syllable clusters bounded by the ending danda of the

segment;

d) The process proceeds by iterating between a left to right reading from the

starting danda in which a context of interpretation is built up until a plausible

total reading of the segment is developed;

e) Furthermore, an iterative process relating the readings of individual segments

to each other may result in successful readings of initially unsuccessful

attempts to read some segments.

25
This kind of reading process can be applied to the longest segment of 20 syllables

with a pattern of (2-1-2-4-1-5-1-4): di-tu-sa-sa-ta-i-li-si-ya-ma-i-ka-wa-wa-la-na-ka-sa-

la-na. The baybayin reader would immediately be able to identity the first three

syllables ‘di-tu-sa’ as ‘ditu sa’ (here in). The very unique and unusual syllable

sequence ‘i-li-si-ya’ (occurring 8 times in the whole text) would be identified as

‘iglesia’ and the ‘sa-ta’ before it identified as ‘santa.’ The reader would then read the

beginning of the segment as ‘ditu sa santa iglesiya’ (here in the church). If the reader

does does not immediately make sense of the immediately following syllables, he

would move to the last part of the segment and perhaps immediately identify the

segment ‘ka-sa-la-nan’ before the ending danda as ‘kasalanan’ (sin) (occurring 18

times in the whole text). The process would then return to the middle section where

the very distinctive Tagalog word ‘wala’ (nothing/none) can be read, and from which

‘ikawawala’ (to absolve) can be constructed. It would then be mere child’s play for

the reader to be able to make out the whole sense: ‘ditu sa santa iglisiya may

ikawawala nang kasalanan’ (here in the church there is a way to absolve sins’).

In summary, reduction of segment pattern complexity in the DC baybayin text and

the attainment of a greater degree of legibility is aided by the following factors:

a) Segment length minimization towards lengths of four syllables to seven;

b) Relatively minimal number of homographs since words of four syllables

upwards (bounded by danda) are generally unique syllable sequences;

c) Maximization of lexical repetition;

d) Maximization of collocational repetition (formulaic structures);

26
 e) The occurrence of lexical repetition at the beginning of segments (generally

after a danda);

f) The occurrence of lexical repetition at the end of segments (before the

danda);

To repeat, the complexity of reading a baybayin text does not arise mainly from the

lack of spaces between words, since this is a trait which it shares with many other

Asian and Southeast Asian writing systems which do not have similar problems. The

difficulty is due mainly to the observed lack of a mechanism for rendering

independent consonants. At first sight, this trait apparently increases the complexity

of the reading process to an almost unreasonable degree. It could be said that the

most complex type of baybayin text is one of extended length with no dandas. It is

true that such a text would be exceedingly difficult to parse mentally and this is

actually the extreme, and non-existent, case which intimidates Lumbera and Rafael.

Based on its use of the danda punctuation, the DC can perhaps only be considered

a moderately complex baybayin text (Figure 13). The danda punctuation of the

baybayin system can therefore be seen as a kind of adaptation which works in such

a way that a balance can be sought between predictability and complexity and a

compromise found between flexibility of expression and readability. In the case of the

DC, this balance was attained empirically with segments averaging 6.5 syllables in

length. Traditional Tagalog poetry was in fact heptasyllabic in length. The oldest

published Tagalog poem ‘May bagyo ma,t, may rilim’ (Lumbera 2001, 40) followed

this meter,

May bagyo ma,t, may rilim

27
 Ang ola,y, titiguisin,

Aco,y, magpipilit din:

Aquing paglalacbayin

Toloyin cong hanapin

Dios na ama namin.

(Though it is stormy and dark,

I’ll strain my tearful plaints

And struggle on –

I’ll set out on a voyage

And persist in my search

For God our Father.)

Furthermore, the most popular kind of text written by the Mangyan on the island of

Mindoro is called ambahan, it is a metered poetic form with seven syllables per line

(with the usual exception of the first introductory line) (Postma 1970). The Mangyan

usually write the ambahan using their baybayin-type writing systems on pieces of

bamboo. Their use of the double danda for this type of text generally requires its

placement after every line in this heptasyllabic poetic form (Figure 14). Interestingly,

this kind of writing convention has allowed a large enough margin for ambahan

poetic expression in the Mangyan language to flourish. Is it a simple coincidence that

the most productive segment length in DC (in terms of patterns) coincides with the

Tagalog and Mangyan poetic meters of 7?

28
It could be surmised that the danda, in the early development of some baybayin type

writing systems, were initially used to mark divisions between each word in a text as

it seems to be the case with the related Tagbanua writing system on the island of

Palawan (Figure 15). The danda punctuation could not have been a subsequent

introduction after a non-danda baybayin version had already developed since it

would have seemed obvious to its users that such a continuous baybayin text would

have been impossible to read with any expectation of accuracy. Perhaps the danda,

as it functioned in the Mangyan and Tagbanua writing systems, was not a belated

addition but rather a structurally integral component to baybayin type writings

systems. This relates to Alcina’s observation that the lack of the danda would have

resulted in even greater confusion on the part of the reader. The kind of usage of the

danda punctuation observable in the DC which extended beyond individual words

perhaps developed after it became evident to its users that the employment of danda

as word separators was not only inefficient but also informationally redundant. In

addition, a word for word danda separator would seem to be counterproductive since

it would destroy even the small context that variable length segmentation allows and

atomizes the lexical elements of fixed and formulaic phrases needlessly. The danda

punctuation could have developed as an adaptational mechanism for significantly

reducing the complexity of the reading process. It was a possible response to the

question of finding a viable balance between sufficient flexibility and improved

legibility given the inherent limitations of baybayin type writing systems.

Implications on the Question of Affinities and Origins

29
The striking common trait of Philippine baybayin-type aksary and the Bugis-Makasar

writing systems of not possessing a virama or vowel killer has often been remarked

upon. The anthropologist Robert B. Fox, thought it implausible that Tagalog writers

of baybayin would have given up a mechanism for writing independent consonants

had this been available to them and therefore favored a theory of a Sulawesi origin

for Philippine aksaries. Fox wrote,

The Philippine syllabaries, unlike those found throughout most of Indonesia,

as in Java and Sumatra, did not record final consonants; hence the term bubo

and bubon would be written in the same way. Filipino languages have final

consonants, and the fact that final consonants are not written in the Philippine

syllabaries gives a clue as to which group of people brought this writing into

the islands.

Among the great traders in the past, as well as at the present, are the

Buginese of Southern Celebes. They have used a syllabary which has

similarities to the Philippine writing, and they do not record final consonants…

The languages of the Philippines, as noted do have final consonants, and if

the syllabary was introduced by the Javanese or another group in Indonesia

who write final consonants, why did not the ancient Filipinos employ a similar

feature? (cited in Francisco 1973, 7)

However, Francisco casts doubt on the plausibility of Fox’s theory of the affinity

between Buginese-Makasar and Philippine aksaries. He first gives an objection

based on palaeographic grounds,

30
 Fox’s question is indeed relevant to our problem. But the apparent support he

gives to the epigraphic evidence of a Buginese ancestry of Philippine syllabic

scripts is self-contradictory, considering that in the more important aspect of

the script – that is, palaeographic (-epigraphic) – it is evident that the

Buginese and Philippine scripts do not show any definite, even if only

fortuitous affinities. Even perhaps considering that the Buginese is a remote

development of a Javanese form of the South Indian, it is still difficult to show

that palaeographically the Philippine scripts originated from the former. (1973,

8)

Francisco then raises some valid questions regarding geography,

Apart from the above consideration, the geography of the region itself appears

to further contravene Fox’s viewpoint. Assuming that the Buginese of

Southern Celebes were ‘great traders of the past, as well as at the present,’

we do not have tangible evidence to prove that they traded, for instance, with

the Tagbanuwa. And if it is claimed that the scripts could be considered as

evidence, yet we cannot see any palaeographic (epigraphic) affinities

between the two systems of writing.

Again, if, indeed, the Buginese made trade sorties with their neighbours in the

past and if they were instrumental in the spread of the system of writing in the

Philippine archipelago, we should find traces of script writing at least in

Southern Mindanao, e.g. Cotabato, or in the Sulu region, for these regions are

more proximate to Celebes than to the Tagbanuwa area. It is also probable

that the southern and eastern Borneo regions were the stopping places of

31
 these supposed traders and thereby occasioned the introduction of a system

of writing similar to the Buginese… (1973, 8)

Based on his detailed ‘comparative quantification’ of the affinities between Philippine

scripts, Buginese-Makasar and Sumatran aksaries, Francisco considered a

Sumatran theory of the origin of Philippine scripts more likely,

I incline to the view, therefore, that the affinities of the Philippines in the

Southeast Asian regions lie in the Sumatran writings… I do not entirely

dismiss the Buginese affinity if only on the basis of its not recording final

consonants in composition. But in terms of the categorization made above of

the basic form strokes, it is difficult to argue for its acceptance without

considering the other factors involved in the scripts themselves. The Buginese

scripts do not show any basic form stroke similar to the Philippine scripts as

well as do the Sumatran writings. (1973, 84)

However, Francisco still found himself groping for an explanation for the very unique

shared palaeographic trait of Bugis-Makasar and Philippine aksaries of not being

able to record final consonants and proposes in the end that, ‘it may have been the

Buginese peoples themselves who borrowed this system of writing from the early

Filipinos. The evidence seems to show that there were no contacts between the

Philippines and Celebes in early times, at least palaeographically’ (1973, 8). For his

part, William Henry Scott avers that ‘there is no reason why Tagalog merchants

should not have brought [the writing technology] back from their trading voyages

themselves’ (1994, 216). Furthermore, even though Alcina (2005, 49) recounts that

32
the Philippine aksaries had come from Borneo to the Tagalogs, and then from the

Tagalogs to the Visayans, in another section on spells in the same volume he

alludes to the presence in the Visayan Islands, of the Makassarese (which likely

refers also to the Buginese). According to Alcina,

Sólo digo que quizás hay más en estas islas de ésto que en otra parte del

mundo, porque, como acá concurren tanta variedad de gentes y naciones

infieles, moros, herejes, malos cristianos, que es lo mismo, en cuanto a esto

hay muchísimo, y aun otros hechizos más bestiales, enseñados de los

macasares y malucos en orden a mayor potencia o más bestial lujuria, que,

por ser soeces o indignos de saberse, cuanto más de usarse, no quiero

manchar con ellos estos escritos, y aun los dichos excusara si la obligación

de la historia general y especial de los abusos de estos bisayas no obligara a

decir todo lo que, sin ofender los oídos castos, es digno de saberse. (2005,

396)

(I only say that, perhaps, there is more of this [spells] in these Islands than in

any other part of the world, because here such a variety of peoples and pagan

nations come together. Moslems, heretics, bad Christians, which is all one

and the same. What more, there are many, and even more bestial spells

among the Macasares and Maluccos; all ordained to a greater and more

beast-like lasciviousness. Since these are so vile and unworthy of being

known, much more so of being practiced, I do not wish to soil these writings. I

would even by-pass them if I were not duty-bound to narrate all that, without

33
 offending the chaster ears with such abuses which, in turn, are a part of the

general history and especially of these Bisayas.) (2005, 397)

Potet provided the authors with a copy of a Buginese Portulan map from the

seventeenth century, the same period in which Alcina wrote, which clearly shows

that the Bugis were acquainted with the following destinations in the Philippine

archipelago: bta (Bataan); buru (Buru=Calubauan Island); pla (Palau-

an=Palawan); twetwe (Tawe-Tawe=Tawi-Tawi); mGidno

(Mangidano=Maguindanao); bsil (Basilan), saulo (Sa-ulo=Sulu) (Figure 16)

(Potet 2012a, 17). Moreover, Fachruddin (1999, 114-115) while discussing the

toponyms mentioned in the most famous Bugis ethnoepic I La Galigo, which is

estimated to have been written in the seventeenth century at the latest (but

composed much earlier), writes, ‘Also mentioned often is Soloq or Matasoloq… If

this is correct, then Pao, which Cense read as Kedah, must be considered as Davao

(Juga sering disebut-sebut Soloq atau Matasoloq… Kalau yang terakhir ini benar,

maka Pao, yang oleh Cense ditafsirkan sebagai Kedah, mungkin seharusnya

dianggap Davao). However, while Soloq may indeed be Sulu given the corroborating

evidence of the Buginese map, Davao may not yet have existed as such at the time

of composition of the epic.

Macknight (email to R.G., February 12, 2014) further considers as possible evidence

of early Philippine-Sulawesi interaction the following: 1) Sulawesi sailors coming to

Sulu to collect Chinese ceramics in large quantities as recorded by Zhao Yu-kuo

(Chao Ju-kua) about 1225; 2) Apparent spread of inhumation from Philippines to

Sulawesi; 3) Some observed similarities in boat construction; 4) Possible similarities

34
in golden face masks found in the Philippines and in South Sulawesi. Furthermore,

Christian Pelras’ observation (citing the PortugueseTomé Pires) indicates that

traders from Luzon staying in Malaka probably had the occasion to interact with

Bugis and Makassar traders,

Il est à noter, en effet, qu'en 1511, il y avait à Malaka un sjahbandar pour

chacune des principales nations marchandes présentes dans la cité: gens

des Moluques, de Banda, de Java, de Tanjung Fura (Banjarmasin), de

Palembang et de Luzon, alors que Macaçar n'est pas nommé: il faisait partie

sans doute de ces «autres régions qui», dit Pires, «apportent ici, riz et

esclaves, mais dont il n'est pas nécessaire de citer le nom, car elles ne

constituent pas de grands centres commerciaux». (Pelras 1981,163)

(Indeed, it is to be noted that in 1511, there was in Malaka a syahbandar [port

captain] for each of the main trading nations present in the city: people from

the Moluccas, from Banda, from Java, from Tanjung Fura (Banjarmasin), from

Palembang at Luzon. Although Makassar is not mentioned: it was no doubt

one of the ‘other regions which’, Pires wrote, ‘brought here rice and slaves but

which did not need to be named because they did not constitute any great

center of commerce.’ )

Francisco realized that his Sumatran hypothesis would only work if by some twist of

fate, the culture bearers of writing systems from Sumatra who had brought these to

the Philippines had not been ‘well-versed’ in them and had taught these to the

35
Tagalogs or other Philippine islanders imperfectly. Francisco expounded on his

theory of ‘corrupted’ script as follows,

However, the answer to this problem may lie in the fact that writing in the

Philippines was introduced comparatively late, and that the carriers of this

cultural item were not Indians but hinduised Malays, Javanese, or Sumatrans

who themselves may not have been well-versed in writing at the time they

introduced this culture tool. Hence, the absence of the symbols of final

consonants may be due to this situation and to the cultural situation of the

recipients of the writing system. (1973, 8-9)

Instead of pitting the Sumatran versus the Sulawesi writing systems, a broader

perspective is offered by De Casparis, who proposes that Sumatran aksaries

themselves may have been the antecedents of Bugis-Makasar scripts,

As for the Macassarese and Buginese scripts in South Sulawesi (Celebes)

and the Bimanese scripts of eastern Sumbawa it seems likely that both are

derived from the Sumatranese scripts, although much more research is

needed to establish the precise relationships. As Bima has been a

dependency of Macassar it would seem likely that Bimanese script is also an

offshoot of Macassarese. Bimanese script has, however, long been extinct so

that we have to rely on the alphabets copied by Raffles and Friedrich. The

latter looks quite phantastic but the alphabet reproduced by Raffles shows

some similarities with Macassarese and Buginese scripts. Some more work

has recently been done on scripts in the Philippines, notably by Father Juan

36
 Francisco and Father Antoon Postma. It has been suggested that the

Philippine alphabets, too, are offshoots from Macassarese-Buginese scripts

but, although, there is not the slightest doubt that they, too, belong to the

Indonesian ‘family’ of scripts, their precise attachments are uncertain. (1975,

66-67)

Others propose that the supposedly older Makassar aksaries derived more directly

from Kawi while the Bugis aksary was adopted from Sumatran scripts which were

themselves offshoots of Kawi (Rahman 2014). Despite Francisco’s powerful

objections, at least two commonalities can be used to establish a relatively strong

theory of affinity between Bugis-Makasar and Philippine aksaries. These are the

following:

1) The fact that they lack a vowel killer or virama which prevents the writing of

independent consonants;

2) A similar style of usage of danda punctuation for complexity management

seems to exist for both the Philippine baybayin type and Bugis-Makasar

aksaries.

The linguist Christopher Miller has lately remarked upon another striking shared

convention between the Bugis-Makasar and Philippine aksaries wherein the doubling

of the vowel marker of a single sign serves as a shorthand for doubling the syllable

itself (Miller 2011b, 4; Potet 2012b, 120). This, however, is quite rarely found in

existing examples of Philippine scripts. A vivid sense of the second point above

could be gleaned just from a cursory examination of pages of Bugis and Old

37
Makasar texts (Figures 17 and 18) where distinct versions of the danda punctuation,

known as lontara pallawa in these scripts are employed. It is said that the lontara

pallawa in the Bugis system is used to separate ‘rhythmico-intonational’ groups

(Everson 2003, 2) and therefore function much like periods and commas. But this

may not completely explain their function in the Bugis writing system. Macknight

(1988, 1), writes intriguingly of the poetic use of the lontara pallawa in the I La Galigo

epic, ‘The form of the poetry is very simple. The language is structured into units of

five, or more rarely four, syllables. Since the Bugis script allows only one aksara for

each syllable, this means a written form of five (or four) aksara. The divisions

between units are usually indicated by the main 'punctuation' sign of the script, the

pallawa consisting of three vertical dots.’ It will be recalled that around 33% of all

segments of DC are four and five syllables long. Sirk’s study on Buginese metrics

(1986) contains several insights relevant to this matter. Sirk wrote that, ‘Judging from

Matthes’ data, in the majority of Buginese poetic works the length of the segments

conforms to strict rules. This is not the case with various magic and ritual chants,

however’ (278). He calls the latter ‘metrically free texts.’ Sirk classified Buginese

poetry into two types. In the first type, ‘The whole poem consists of segments of

equal length. The domain covered by this type comprises virtually all literary poetry.’

Sirk adds that these poems are normally in octosyllabic or pentasyllabic metre. In the

second type, ‘The poem consists of segments of different lengths which are

arranged according to a specific pattern, e.g. an 8-syllable segment is followed by a

7-syllable segment which is followed by a 6-syllable one’ (278).

A Buginese text from Matthes’ Boeginesche Chrestomathie, entitled yinea

paukotik (‘Yinae pâoe kotika’ or ‘Concerning Auspicious and Inauspicious Times’)

38
(Matthes 1872, 252-256) has a total of 192 danda-divided segments. A cursory

analysis of the text shows that the segments can be grouped into long and short

segments. The short segments with less than ten characters number 114 and have

an average length of 6.5 syllables. The long segments with ten or more characters

total 78 segments with an average length of 13.5 syllables. The average for the

whole text taken all together is 9.4 syllables (longer on the average than the DC).

Further experiments with other available texts must be conducted since Macknight

cautions against the uncritical use of Matthes transcriptions which to his mind may

not faithfully reflect Buginese practice (email to R.G., February 12, 2014),

Orality and Segmentation

The baybayin and buginese writing systems basically function within largely oral

tradition-based societies. Relevant structures in the oral linguistic phenomena of

these societies would be expected to shape at least some structures of their written

narratives: we should mostly expect such shaping in the phenomenon of narrative

flow segmentation (in closely related oral verse lines and written phrase segments).

It could therefore be asked: is there also a habitual and tractable phenomenon of

narrative segmentation in oral tradition homologous to the danda-marked

segmentation in writing in these compared sets? Epic based data seems to give a

positive answer to this question. Praat-based spectrogram analysis (Figure 19) and

breath intake and phrase length values (Table 12) of the opening lines of the

Manobo Tolalang epic show consistent pitch and breath intake markers segmenting

the chanted narrative, thereby forming the phenomenon of versification for the whole

thirty five lines of the proem. Verse lines within these phonetic segments also show a

39
durable pattern of phonemic syllabic counts: in the given sample data, the mean

syllabic count (discounting the two outliers, chanted in rap-like fashion) is 7.47

syllables per segment, or a mode of 8 syllabic counts per acoustical segment.

Use of such tandem epic-script segmentation patterns to address these two possible

evolutionary explanations for similarity of features/traits in any two compared

systems: divergent evolution (similarity of design is due to borrowing or sharing of a

feature from a common ancestor) versus convergent evolution (similarity is due to

the shaping of similar environmental or cultural system: in this case, epic narrative

structures shaping phrase segmentation in writing): epic-based segmentation

patterns, in short, can be used as an independent test for checking a

divergent/diffusionist type of evolutionary scenario.

Given that the two main variables or dimensions used as basis for script comparison:

(a) absence of virama, (b) similarity/dissimilarity of danda segmentation patterns

{particularly, syllabic lengths}—are, so to speak, detachable traits of the system

investigated (one can have a surat system with just the first trait and still be

functional in complexity management by possibly developing alternative

mechanisms), the possibility is always open for a kind of 'multiregional theory' for the

evolution of these scripts, that is, the emergence of a script featuring these two traits

(absence of the virama, and danda segmentation) is always possible via diverse

routes and time for the arrival of each of the trait.

Conclusion

40
In contrast with the Bugis-Makasar aksaries, the danda punctuation does not have

any significant usage in Batak and other Sumatran scripts (Kozok 2009;

Lumbantoruan 2009). (This may be another argument against Francisco’s theory of

Sumatran origins.) Like Alcina and Chirino, a modern scholar like Ian Caldwell was

surprised by the fact that the alleged ‘deficiencies’ of the Bugis aksary did not seem

to pose a problem for experienced native readers. Caldwell (1988) writes,

Mills states that, the phonologic incompleteness of the script makes the

reading of texts, even for Bugis or Makasar, extremely difficult, due to the

constant choice of reading proffered by the script. I personally did not find this

so. During fieldwork in South Sulawesi I was constantly impressed by the

ease with which my Bugis-speaking colleagues (who were all scholars) could

read material written in the Bugis-Makasar script. Such difficulties as they

encountered were invariably those of archaic words or expressions, or textual

corruption. The possibility of misreading what a text says is, however, a

danger the non‐Bugis-speaking translator has to learn to live with, especially

when dealing with archaic material. In theory, every combination of two

aksara offers a minimum of six and a maximum of nine lexical possibilities…

[Such as] the example of the combination PaPa, which can represent the

'words' papa, pappa, pampa, papaq, pappaq, pampaq, papang, pappang and

pampang. However, according to the data given in the Woordenboek, only the

first, second and fifth of these occur as actual words, yielding a total of six

semantic entries.

41
Could it be that the lontara pallawa punctuation in the Bugis writing system plays a

similar role as the baybayin danda punctuation? The baybayin danda-system

performs many functions related to the semantic organization of text which modern

Western punctuation also performs. However, it is also unique in that its use seems

to be related to the function of reducing or managing the complexity which is

generated by a highly peculiar feature of this writing system. This kind of theory

requires the consideration of punctuation usage outside of the usual boundaries of

the dominant Western systems of writing. If it is true that the lontara pallawa

punctuation has a similar function in Buginese aksary as the double danda

punctuation in the baybayin system, the theory of their kinship and affinity, if not the

reciprocal directionality of influence, may be further reinforced. It is almost

impossible that such a complex integrated system where a type of punctuation that

has apparently been uniquely adapted to the inability of a script to represent

independent consonants could have arisen independently in such a narrow

geographical area. However, there is also much that it is unknown in the history of

the Bugis system of writing. Though it is posited that it could have been introduced to

the Bugis as early as the 1300s (Macknight and Caldwell 2001), none of the existing

Bugis-Makasar manuscripts predate the late seventeenth century (Caldwell 1988).

The DC is therefore older by almost a century. The original forms of the Indic

aksaras and of the danda are also more marked in the Tagalog baybayin than in the

Bugis and Makassar versions which are clearly later departures and elaborations. In

retrospect, a successful dating of the so-called Calatagan pot inscription, where a

baybayin-type writing system is used with a single danda punctuation with segment

lengths generally of seven, would be of help in shedding light on this history. If the

conventional narrative is assumed of the dissemination of scripts from Indonesia to

42
the Philippines (Macknight 10, 2014; Miller 2013), it could be posited that there once

existed a common ancestor of the baybayin and the Bugis-Makasar systems,

perhaps in Borneo or Sumatra, more similar to the baybayin aksary in appearance

with no vowel killer and a similar complexity management function for the danda

punctuation.

It has to be emphasized that, given its current limitations, any conclusions which this

study may offer could apply very strictly only to DC. Other old baybayin documents

with similar usages of the danda punctuation such as those found in the archives of

the University of Santo Tomas in Manila from 1613 and 1625 (Potet 2012b, 115-125)

as well as the much larger corpus of Mangyan manuscripts could be subjected to

similar procedures. However, it could only serve as evidence of affinity between

Bugis-Makasar and Philippine scripts if a similar method of analysis could be applied

even to a mere subset of the huge corpus of Bugis-Makasar manuscripts

systematically and comprehensively in the future.

Bibliography

Alcina, F.I. 2005 [1668]. History of the Bisayan People in the Philippine Islands (Vol.

3). Manila: UST Publishing House.

Batoon, L.M., Raqueno, E.G. and C.Y. Calida. 2001. A Primer on the

Tagbanua/Pala’wan Syllabic Writing. Manila: National Museum.

Benjamin, Walter. 1982. Das Passagen-Werk. Erster Band. Frankfurt am Main:

Suhrkamp.

43
Caldwell, I. 1988. South Sulawesi A.D.1300-­‐1600. Ten Bugis Texts. PhD Thesis.

The

National University of Australia. Online version at www.oxis.org. Last

accessed: 1-26-2014.

Canceran, D.C. 1993. A Pagan Face of God (Towards a Semiotics of Early

Christianization in the Philippines, 1521-1665). Quezon City: Rex Book Store.

Chirino, P. 1890. Relación de las Filipinas y de lo que han trabajado en ellas los PP.

de la Compañía de Jesús. Manila: Imprenta de D. Esteban Balbás.

De Casparis, J. 1975. Indonesian Palaeography. Leiden/Köln: E.J. Brill.

De San Agustin, G. 1879. Compendio del arte de la lengua tagala. Manila, Impr. de

‘Amigos del pais.’

Doctrina Christiana, en lengua española y tagala. 1593. Manila. Downloaded from

the Lessing J. Rosenwald Collection (Library of

Congress):http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-

bin/ampage?collId=rbc3&fileName=rbc0001_2002rosen1302page.db. Last

accessed: 1-26-2014.

Everson, M. 2003. Revised final proposal for encoding the Lontara (Buginese) script

in the UCS. Working paper for the International Organization for

Standardization.

Ezguerra, R. D. 1747. Arte de la lengua Bisaya de la provincia de Leite. Manila:

Compania de Jesus.

Fachruddin Ambo Enre. 1999. Ritumpanna Wélenrénngé: Sebuah Episoda Sastra

Bugis Klasik Galigo. Jakarta: École française d’Extrême-Orient. Fakultas

Sastra Universitas Indonesia & Yayasan Obor Indonesia.

44
Francisco, J. 1973. Philippine Palaeography. Philippine Journal of Linguistics,

Special Monograph Issue no. 3.

Gonzales, A.B. 1985. The Sixteenth Century Tagalog of the Doctrina Christiana

(1593): The First Step Towards Intellectualization, Likha, Vol. VIII (2): 1-36.

Guillermo, R. & Paluga, M. 2011. Barang king banga: A Visayan language reading of

the Calatagan Pot Inscription (CPI). Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 42,

121-159.

Holle, K.F. 1882. Tabel oud-en Nieuw-Indische alphabetten, bijdrage tot de

palaeographie van Nederlandsch-Indie. Batavia: W. Bruining & Co.

Kozok, U. 2009. Surat Batak: Sejarah Perkembangan Tulisan Batak, berikut

Pedoman Menulis Aksara Batak dan Cap Si Singamangaraja XII. Jakarta:

Gramedia.

Kuizon, J. G. 1964. The Sanskrit loan-words in the Cebuano-Bisayan language.

Asian Folklore Studies, 23(1), 111-115.

Liu, D. 2004. ‘Western knowledge of geography reflected in Juan Cobo’s Shilu

(1593),’ in History of mathematical sciences: Portugal and East Asia II, ed. L.

Saraiva. Singapore: World Scientific.

Lumbera, B.L. 2001. Tagalog Poetry, 1570–1898: Tradition and Influences in Its

Development. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.

Macknight, C.C. & Caldwell I.A. 2001. Variation in Bugis Manuscripts. Archipel.

Volume 61, 139-154.

Macknight, C.C. 1988. The I La Galigo poetry of South Sulawesi . Paper read at the

ASAA Conference, Canberra.

Macknight, Campbell. 2014. The Triumph of Lontara. (Unpublished paper prepared

for the International Workshop on Endangered Scripts of Island Southeast

45
 Asia, Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, Tokyo

University of Foreign Studies, 27 February – 1 March 2014.)

Matthes, B.F. 1872. Boeginesche Chrestomathie. Vol. 2. Amsterdam: C.A. Spin &

Zoon.

Miller, C. 2011a. Graphonomic structure and the origins of the Sumatra-Sulawesi-

Philippine scripts. Presented at the Southeast Asian Linguistic Society

(SEALS) meeting, Bangkok.

Miller, C. 2011b. Linguistic insights into the history of Philippine script Graphonomic

structure Sociolinguistic variation Contact phenomena. Paper read at the 11th

Philippine Linguistic Congress.

Miller, Christopher. 2013. Devanagari's descendants in North and South India,

Indonesia and the Philippines. In: Writing Systems Research 2013: pp. 1–15.

Pardo de Tavera, T.H. 1893. Noticias sobre la imprenta y el grabado en Filipinas.

Madrid: Hernandez.

Pelras, Christian. 1981. Célèbes-sud avant l'Islam, selon les premiers témoignages

étrangers. In: Archipel. Volume 21: 153-184.

Postma, A. 1970. Treasury of a Minority, The Ambahan: A Poetic Expression of the

Mangyans of Southern Mindoro. Mansalay, Oriental Mindoro: Panaytayan

Print

Potet, J.-P. G. 2012a. Arabic & Persian loanwords in Tagalog. Raleigh, NC:

Lulu.com.

Potet, J.-P. G. 2012b. Baybayin, l’Alphabet Syllabique des Tagals. Raleigh, NC:

Lulu.com.

46
Rafael, Vicente. 1988. Contracting colonialism: Translation and Christian conversion

in Tagalog society under early Spanish rule. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila

University Press.

Rahman, Nurhayati. 2014. Sejarah dan Dinamika Perkembangan Huruf Lontaraq di

Sulawesi Selatan. (Unpublished paper for the International Workshop on

Endangered Scripts of Island Southeast Asia, Research Institute for

Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, Tokyo University of Foreign

Studies, 27 February – 1 March 2014.)

San Buenaventura, P. de. 1613. Vocabulario de la lengua Tagala. Pila, Pilipinas.

Schilling, Dorotheus. 1937. Vorgeschichte des Typendrucks auf den Philippinen.

Gutenberg-Jahrbuch, Volume 1937: 202-216.

Scott, W.H. 1994. Barangay: Sixteenth-Century Philippine Culture and Society.

Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.

Sirk, Ü. 1986. A contribution to the study of Buginese metrics: La Galigo verse. In:

Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 142, no. 2/3, Leiden: 277-295.

Steinberg, Sigrid Henry. 1974. Five Hundred Years of Printing. Baltimore: Penguin

Books.

Todung Lumbantoruan. 2009. Panduan Menulis Surat Batak Toba. Jakarta: Penerbit

Papas Sinar Sinanti.

Totanes, V.R. 2008. What was the first book printed in the Philippines?. Journal of

Philippine Librarianship, 28(1), 21-31.

Wolf, E. 1947. Doctrina Christiana. The first book printed in the Philippines, Manila

1593. A Facsimile of the copy in the Lessing J. Rosenwald Collection.

Washington: Library of Congress.

47
Figure 1: The Baybayin writing system with diacritical marks for vowel changes
(Font by Paul Morrow)
Figure 2: Doctrina Christiana (1593) frontispiece
Figure 3: Seventy-six pages of Doctrina Christiana: white (Spanish in Latin
script); gray (Tagalog in Latin script; black (Tagalog in baybayin script)
Figure 4: Excerpted baybayin text from the pages of the Doctrina Christiana
(Leftmost column: ‘page number.line number’)
Figure 5: Baybayin Initial Capitals
 8.4: a[t]-/pa-ka-w a[l]-i[n]-/mu||a[ng]-/a-mi[ng]-/ka-sa-la-na[n]||YA-YA-/
Correction: YA-YA > YA-DI [yaring]

14.4: KI-DI-TU||i-i-sa[ng]-/a-na[k]/-na[ng]-/di-yu[s]||pa-ngi-nu-u[n]-/na-ti[n]-/
Correction: KI-DI-TU > KI-TU [kristo]

27.2: a[ng]-/PI-TA-/na-u-na||a[ng]/-sa-bi-/a[ng]-/di-yu[s]||a[ng]-/pa[g]-ka-di-yu[s]-/
Correction: PI-TA > PI-TO [pitong]

28.1 : nu-u[n]-/si-su-/ki-ta||a[ng]-/PA[G]-KA-TA-WA-/ni-ya||a[y]-/ya-di||
Correction: PA-KA-TA-WA > PA-KA-TA-WO [pagkataw o\

36.10: a[ng]-/na-u-na||MA-KI-YI-/na[ng]-/mi-sa||hu-w a[g]-/mu-li-sa[n]||

Correction: MA-KI-YI > MA-KI-NI [makinig]

45.8: li-ta-i[n]||w a[l]-i[n]-/ba-ha-la-/sa/lu-u[b]||a[ng]-/KA-?-LA-

Correction: KA-?-LA-(NA) > KA-SA-LA-NA [kasalanan]
Unknow n symbol similar to Visayan “sa”: Ezguerra (1747)

73.6: sa-/la-ha[t]||ma[y]-/a-da[w ]-/na-/I-HU-HU||sa-/na-bu-bu-ha[y]-/

Correction: I-HU-HU > I-HU-HU-KU [ihuhukum]

Figure 6: Typographical and other errors in DC

Figure 7: Number of segments (y-axis) and number of words (x-axis)

Figure 8: Number of tokens (y-axis) and number of syllables (x-axis)

Figure 9: Number of segments (y-axis) and number of syllables (x-axis)
Figure 10: Segment number (x-axis) with number of syllables (y-axis)
Figure 11: Number of word-syllable patterns (y-axis) per segment length (x-axis)
Figure 12: Word-syllable pattern (x-axis) by frequency of appearance (y-axis)
 su-ma-sa-pa-la-ta-ya-a-ku-sa-di-yu-a-ma-ma-ka-ga-ga-wa-sa-
la-ha-ma-ga-ga-wa-na-la-ngi-a-na-lu-pa-su-ma-sa-pa-la-ta-ya-
a-ku-na-ma-ka-si-su-ki-di-tu-i-i-sa-a-na-na-di-yu-pa-ngi-nu-u-
na-ti-la-ha-na-ka-ta-a-ta-wu-si-ya-la-la-na-i-pi-di-tu-sa-tu-i-pi-
na-nga-na-ni-sa-ta-ma-di-ya-bi-si-tu-tu-u-na-sa-ta-u-tu-ni-pu-
si-yu-pi-la-tu-i-pi-na-ku-sa-ku-du-na-ma-ta-i-bi-na-u-na-na-u-
sa-ma-nga-i-pi-nu-na-ma-i-ka-lu-a-da-na-bu-ha-na-na-u-li-na-
ya-sa-la-ngi-na-lu-lu-lu-sa-ka-na-na-di-yu-a-ma-ma-ka-ga-ga-
wa-sa-la-ha-sa-ka-pa-di-tu-hu-hu-ku-sa-na-bu-bu-ha-a-sa-na-
nga-ma-ta-na-ta-wu-su-ma-sa-pa-la-ta-ya-a-ku-na-ma-sa-di-
yu-i-pi-di-tu-sa-tu-a-ma-sa-ta-i-li-si-ya-ka-tu-li-ka-a-ma-ka-sa-
ma-ha-a-ma-nga-sa-tu

||-su-ma-sa-pa-la-ta-ya-a-ku-||-sa-di-yu-a-ma-||-ma-ka-ga-ga-wa-sa-la-
ha-||-ma-ga-ga-wa-na-la-ngi-||-a-na-lu-pa-||-su-ma-sa-pa-la-ta-ya-a-ku-
na-ma-||-ka-si-su-ki-di-tu-||-i-i-sa-a-na-na-di-yu-||-pa-ngi-nu-u-na-ti-la-
ha-||-na-ka-ta-a-ta-wu-si-ya-||-la-la-na-i-pi-di-tu-sa-tu-||-i-pi-na-nga-na-
||-ni-sa-ta-ma-di-ya-||-bi-si-tu-tu-u-||-na-sa-ta-u-tu-ni-pu-si-yu-||-pi-la-tu-
||-i-pi-na-ku-sa-ku-du-||-na-ma-ta-||-i-bi-na-u-||-na-na-u-sa-ma-nga-i-pi-
nu-||-na-ma-i-ka-lu-a-da-||-na-bu-ha-na-na-u-li-||-na-ya-sa-la-ngi-||-na-
lu-lu-lu-sa-ka-na-||-na-di-yu-a-ma-||-ma-ka-ga-ga-wa-sa-la-ha-||-sa-ka-
pa-di-tu-||-hu-hu-ku-||-sa-na-bu-bu-ha-||-a-sa-na-nga-ma-ta-na-ta-wu-
||-su-ma-sa-pa-la-ta-ya-a-ku-na-ma-||-sa-di-yu-i-pi-di-tu-sa-tu-||-a-ma-
sa-ta-i-li-si-ya-ka-tu-li-ka-||-a-ma-ka-sa-ma-ha-||-a-ma-nga-sa-tu-||-

Figure 13: European text in scriptio continua (top), Syllabic text with no danda
(middle), Syllabic text with danda (bottom)
Figure 14: Ambahan Poem in Surat Mangyan (Postma 1989, 2a). Danda is repre-
sented as two slanting vertical lines generally after every seven syllables

Figure 15: Folktale in Surat Tagbanua with a Danda separating every word
(Batoon, Raqueno and Calida 2001, 43)
Figure 16: Seventeenth Century Bugis Portulan Map with Philippine toponyms
(Museo Naval, Madrid) (courtesy of Jean-Paul Potet)
Figure 17: Buginese Letters (top), Buginese Vowels (bottom) (Everson 2003, 6)
Figure 18: Surat Karo Batak Text without danda punctuation (Kozok 2009, 71)
(top), Buginese Text with danda represented by 3 dots sloping to the right
(Everson 2003, 4) (middle), Old Makassarese Text with danda represented by
dashes in a straight vertical arrangement (Everson 2003, 6) (bottom)
Figure 19: Praat-based spectrogram analysis of the opening lines of the Manobo
Tolalang epic
Baybayin Transcr iption Moder n Fr eq. Epi- di -t ispidita espirita 1
Iti- di-m itidima ex trema 1
di-yu diyus diyos 53 k-li kalis kalis 1
si- su sisu hesus 30 k-t u-li -k katulika katolika 1
ki- tu kitu kristo 18 ki-d i-tu kiditu Kristo 1
s-t santa santa 18 ku-p i-s kumpisal kumpisal 1
s-tu santu santo 15 ku-m u-d kumulgad komulgar 1
ki- ni-t i-y-nu kinitiyanu kristiyano 11 ku -pi -m kunpidmad kunpirma 1
m-d i-y madiya maria 10 m-a-yu -n magayunad mag-ayunar 1
bi- si bisi birhen 8 m-k u-pi -s magkumpisal magkumpisal 1
Ili siy iglisiya iglesia 8 m-ku- mu-g magkumulgad magkomulgar 1
s san san 8 mi-s misa misa 1
ku- du kudus krus 6 n-ku-k u-pi -s nagkukumpisal nagkukumpisal 1
Epi -nu impinu impiyerno 5 p-lu pablu Pablo 1
Epi -di- tu ispiditu espiritu 5 p-k -s pagkasal pagkasal 1
p-di padi pari 4 p-ku-k u-pi -s pagkukumpisad pagkukumpisal 1
pi -su -n pidsuna pers ona 4 p-mi- mi-s pagmimisa pagmimisa 1
p-k-d i- yu pagkadiyus pagkadiyos 3 p-p papa Papa 1
ak-si akasi arkanghel 2 p-k u-w paskuwa Pasko 1
apu- tuli apustulis apostoles 2 pi-l -tu pilatu Pilato 1
b-t i-t baptista bautista 2 pu-s i-yu punsiyu Ponsiyo 1
du-mi-g u duminggu domingo 2 s-ti- si-m santisima Santisima 1
mi-g i migi Miguel 2 s-tu santu santo 1
pi- du pidu Pedro 2 s-s i-du -ti sasiduti saserdote 1
pi -t pista piyesta 2 ti-n i-d tinidad trinidad 1
s-k-d-mi- tu sakadamitu sakramento 2 Usi-yu unsiyun uncion 1
su -w suwa Juan 2 Udi urdin orden 1
Ad adan Adan 1 Uti-y ustiya ostiya 1
b-ti -mu baptismu baptismo 1
g-d-si-y gadasiya grasya 1

Table 1: Loanwords in DC
SOME CULTURE CONCEPTS AND WORDS OF INTEREST OLD SPELLINGS

tawu 27 kataw’an 8
panginuun 22 wal’ang 4
kasalanan 17 ibig’in 3
sumangpalataya 14 nagkataw’an 3
di 13 nakyat 3
langit 12 pakasasam’in 1
kaluluwa 10 pakawal’in 1
ama 8 wal’in 1
ina 8 winawal’ang 1
anak 7 i 4
yading 7 ikalwa 8
akuy 6 dalwa 2
banal 5 dalwang 1
dili 5
ipanalangin 5
luub 5 COUNTING WORDS
sumasangpalataya 5
aba 4 ikalwa 8
pakinabang 4 dalwa 2
yadi 4 dalwang 1
kapuwa 3 pitung 7
kasamahan 3 ikatlu 6
nagkasasala 3 ikalima 5
adalan 2 ikapat 5
bahala 2 ikanim 4
dilang 2 ikapitu 4
huhukum 2 tatlu 4
humabilin 2 labingapat 2
kaluwalhatian 2 maikatlung 2
lalang 2 pitu 2
makasalanan 2 sangpuwung 2
sala 2 ikapulu 1
tampalasan 2 ikasiyam 1
balan 1 ikawalu 1
balang 1 ilan 1
bayan 1 ilang 1
bayang 1 kaunaunahan 1
binyagan 1 lima 1
diling 1 magikapatnapuwung 1
dini 1 magikatlung 1
ginuung 1 sangikapuwu 1
hadi 1 sangpu 1
haman 1 sangpuwu 1
hukum 1 tatlung 1
hukuman 1 una 1
iadya 1 unang 1
ipasamba 1
ipinaglihi 1
kaawaangawa 1
kalagan 1
kamiy 1
kapada 1
kapanahilian 1
kayamutan 1
luluwalhati 1
magugulang 1
manggagawa 1
mangilin 1
mulisan 1
muwi 1
nakaluluwalhati 1

Table 2: Selected Tagalog Culture Concepts, Spelling Variants and Counting

Words in DC (with frequency of appearance)
1. a 250 62. i-ka-li-ma 5
2. na 142 63. i-ka-pa 5
3. sa 106 64. i-pa-na-la-ngi 5
4. di-yu 53 65. i-pi-di-tu 5
5. mu 33 66. i-pi-nu 5
6. si-su 30 67. lu-u 5
7. ta-wu 28 68. ma-ka-ga-ga-wa 5
8. ka 22 69. ma-pa-da-ti 5
9. pa-ngi-nu-u 22 70. nga-la 5
10. a-ti 21 71. pa-da 5
11. ma 20 72. sa-a 5
12. ni-ya 20 73. su-ma-sa-pa-la-ta-ya 5
13. la-ha 19 74. ta-lu 5
14. a-mi 18 75. a-ba 4
15. ka-sa-la-na 18 76. i 4
16. ki-tu 18 77. i-ka 4
17. sa-ta 18 78. i-ka-ni 4
18. di 17 79. i-ka-pi-tu 4
19. ma-nga 17 80. i-ka-wa-wa-la 4
20. si-ya 17 81. ma-bu-bu-ha 4
21. ka-ya 16 82. ma-u-li 4
22. sa-tu 16 83. na-bu-bu-ha 4
23. a-nu 15 84. na-hu-li 4
24. ku 14 85. na-ma-ta 4
25. su-ma-pa-la-ta-ya 14 86. pa 4
26. a-ku 13 87. pa-di 4
27. tu-tu-u 13 88. pa-ki-na-ba 4
28. la-ngi 12 89. pi-su-na 4
29. hu-wa 11 90. sa-bi 4
30. ki-ni-ti-ya-nu 11 91. si 4
31. ya-di 11 92. si-la 4
32. ka-lu-lu-wa 10 93. wa-la 4
33. ma-di-ya 10 94. a-li 3
34. na-ti 10 95. da-wa 3
35. na-u-na 10 96. i-ba 3
36. ni 9 97. i-bi-i 3
37. pi-tu 9 98. i-sa 3
38. a-ma 8 99. ka-na 3
39. bi-si 8 100. ka-pu-wa 3
40. i-ka-wa 8
41. i-li-si-ya 8
42. i-na 8
43. i-yu 8
44. ka-ta-a 8
45. na-ma 8
46. u-tu 8
47. u-u 8
48. a-da 7
49. a-na 7
50. di-tu 7
51. du-u 7
52. ka-mi 7
53. di-li 6
54. i-ka-lu 6
55. ku-du 6
56. lu-pa 6
57. ma-ma-ta 6
58. na-mi 6
59. na-nga-ma-ta 6
60. ni-la 6
61. ba-na 5

Table 3: 100 most frequent syllabicated word-forms in DC (with frequency of ap-

pearance)
1. ang 195 66. adaw 5
2. nang 112 67. banal 5
3. sa 98 68. dili 5
4. diyus 53 69. ikalima 5
5. at 43 70. ikapat 5
6. mu 32 71. impinu 5
7. na 30 72. ipanalangin 5
8. sisu 30 73. ispiditu 5
9. tawu 27 74. luub 5
10. panginuun 22 75. makagagawa 5
11. ating 21 76. ngalan 5
12. niya 19 77. nila 5
13. kitu 18 78. pada 5
14. lahat 18 79. saan 5
15. santa 18 80. sumasangpalataya 5
16. kasalanan 17 81. aba 4
17. manga 17 82. din 4
18. amin 15 83. i 4
19. kaya 15 84. ikanim 4
20. santu 15 85. ikapitu 4
21. sumangpalataya 14 86. ikaw 4
22. di 13 87. ikawawala 4
23. may 13 88. iyu 4
24. tutuu 13 89. iyung 4
25. kung 12 90. mabubuhay 4
26. langit 12 91. maguli 4
27. huwag 11 92. nabubuhay 4
28. kay 11 93. nahuli 4
29. kinitiyanu 11 94. namatay 4
30. ka 10 95. pa 4
31. kaluluwa 10 96. padi 4
32. madiya 10 97. pakinabang 4
33. natin 10 98. pidsuna 4
34. nauna 10 99. sabi 4
35. siya 10 100. si 4
36. anung 9
37. ay 9
38. ni 9
39. ama 8
40. bisi 8
41. iglisiya 8
42. ikalwa 8
43. ina 8
44. katawan 8
45. san 8
46. utus 8
47. uu 8
48. aku 7
49. anak 7
50. ditu 7
51. duun 7
52. man 7
53. naman 7
54. pitung 7
55. siyang 7
56. yading 7
57. akuy 6
58. anu 6
59. ikatlu 6
60. kami 6
61. kudus 6
62. lupa 6
63. mamatay 6
64. namin 6
65. nangamatay 6

Table 4: 100 most frequent word-forms in DC (with frequency of appearance)

1. a 3 1. a 62. pagkatawa 1 29. pa-ka-ta-wa
2. ang 195 63. pagkatawan 1
3. at 43 64. pablu 1 30. pa-lu
4. ay 9 65. palu 1
5. adal 1 2. a-da 66. pitu 2 31. pi-tu
6. adan 1 67. pitung 7
7. adaw 5 68. punu 2 32. pu-nu
8. aku 7 3. a-ku 69. punung 1
9. akuy 6 70. sa 98 33. sa
10. amin 15 4. a-mi 71. san 8
11. aming 3 72. sala 2 34. sa-la
12. anu 6 5. a-nu 73. salang 1
13. anung 9 74. sangpuwu 1 35. sa-pu-wu
14. balan 1 6. ba-la 75. sangpuwung 2
15. balang 1 76. santu 15 36. sa-tu
16. bayan 1 7. ba-ya 77. santus 1
17. bayang 1 78. sila 3 37. si-la
18. dalwa 2 8. da-wa 79. silang 1
19. dalwang 1 80. siya 10 38. si-ya
20. di 13 9. di 81. siyang 7
21. din 4 82. tatlu 4 39. ta-lu
22. dili 5 10. di-li 83. tatlung 1
23. diling 1 84. tawu 27 40. ta-wu
24. iba 2 11. i-ba 85. tawung 1
25. ibang 1 86. una 1 41. u-na
26. iisa 1 12. i-i -sa 87. unang 1
27. iisang 1 88. yadi 4 42. ya-di
28. ilan 1 13. i-la 89. yading 7
29. ilang 1
30. isa 2 14. i-sa
31. isang 1
32. iyu 4 15. i-yu
33. iyung 4
34. ka 10 16. ka
35. kang 1
36. kay 11
37. kami 6 17. ka-mi
38. kamiy 1
39. kaya 15 18. ka-ya
40. kayang 1
41. ku 2 19. ku
42. kung 12
43. man 7 20. ma
44. may 13
45. magikatlung 1 21. ma-i-ka-lu
46. maikatlung 2
47. magpadati 1 22. ma-pa-da-ti
48. magpadating 3
49. mapadating 1
50. mata 1 23. ma-ta
51. matay 1
52. mu 32 24. mu
53. mung 1
54. na 30 25. na
55. nang 112
56. naman 7 26. na-ma
57. namang 1
58. nila 5 27. ni-la
59. nilang 1
60. niya 19 28. ni-ya
61. niyang 1

Table 5: Different readings (left column), homographs (right column) (with fre-
quency of appearance)
4--1-1-2 a di ba-na | ang di banal|
4--1-1-2 a ku pi-ta| at kung pista|
4--1-1-2 a ma bu-ha | at may buhay|
4--1-1-2 a ma lu-u | at may luub|
4--1-1-2 a na lu-pa| at nang lupa|
4--1-1-2 a sa pi-ta| at sa pista|
4--1-1-2 a si i-ba| at si iba|
4--1-1-2 ka sa mi-gi| kay san migi|
4--1-1-2 (2) ka sa pi-du| kay san pidu|
4--1-2-1 a lu-u mu| angluub mu|
4--1-2-1 a nga-la mu| ang ngalan mu|
4--1-2-1 a sa-bi i| ang sabi i|
4--1-3 a na-u-na| ang nauna|
4--1-3 a ba-ti-mu| angbaptismu|
4--1-3 (5) a i-ka-lu| angikatlu|
4--1-3 (4) a i-ka-ni | ang ikanim|
4--1-3 (5) a i-ka-pa | ang ikapat|
4--1-3 (6) a i-ka-wa| ang ikalwa|
4--1-3 a ku-mu-ga | ang kumulgad|
4--1-3 a ku-pi-ma | ang kunpidmad|
4--1-3 a ku-pi-sa | ang kumpisal|
4--1-3 a ma-ma-ta | ang mamatay|
4--1-3 a na-ma-ta | ang namatay|
4--1-3 (4) a na-u-na| ang nauna|
4--1-3 a pa-ka-sa | ang pagkasal|
4--1-3 i sa-pu-wu| i sangpuwu|
4--1-3 (2) ku du-mi-gu| kung duminggu|
4--1-3 ku ma-u-tu | kung magutus|
4--1-3 ku pa-ku-wa| kung paskuwa|
4--1-3 sa ba-ba-yi | sa babaying|
4--1-3 (2) sa i-pi-nu| sa impinu|
4--1-3 sapa-ka-i | sapagkain|
4--1-3 sapa-ni-di | sapanimdim|
4--1-3 sa pa-wi-ka| sa pagwika|
4--2-2 a-ma na-mi | ama namin|
4--2-2 (7) a-mi si-su| aminsisu|
4--2-2 a-nu ka-ya| anu kaya|
4--2-2 di-yu a-ma| diyus ama|
4--2-2 di-yu a-na | diyus anak|
4--2-2 (4) i-na na-ti | ina natin|
4--2-2 na-sa la-ngi | nasa langit|
4--2-2 (2) si-su ki-tu| sisukitu|
4--2-2 si-ya a-ma| siyang ama|
4--2-2 si-ya a-na | siyanganak|
4--2-2 (6) ya-di di-yu | yadingdiyus|
4--3-1 i-ga-la mu| igalangmu|
4--3-1 ma-ngi-li ka| mangilinka|
4--3-1 mi-mi-sa ma | miminsan man|
4—4 a-da-a-da | adawadaw|
4—4 da-ta-pu-wa | datapuwat|
4—4 (2) i-bi-na-u | ibinaun|
4—4 la-bi-a-pa | labingapat|
4—4 ma-a-wa-i | maawain|
4—4 ma-a-yu-na | magayunad|
4—4 ma-ku-mu-ga | magkumulgad|
4—4 ma-ku-pi-sa | magkumpisal|
4—4 na-hi-hi-ta | naghihintay|
4—4 pa-i-nu-mi | painumin|
4—4 pa-ki-na-ba | pakinabang|
4—4 pa-tu-lu-yi | patuluyin|
4—4 ta-u-ta-u | t auntaun|

Table 6: 4 Syllable Segment Patterns in DC

7--1-1-2-1-2 a ma ga-wa sa la-ha | ang may gawa sa lahat|
7--1-1-2-1-2 (2) a sa la-ha na sa-tu| at sa lahat nang santu|
7--1-1-2-3 a di si-la su-mu-nu | ang di sila sumunud|
7--1-1-2-3 a ka sa-ta ma-di-ya| at kay santa madiya|
7--1-1-2-3 (2) ka sa su-wa ba-ti-ta| kay san suwa baptista|
7--1-1-3-2 a ku ma-ma-ta ka-mi| at kung mamatay kami|
7--1-1-5 a a pa-ku-ku-pi-sa | at ang pagkukumpisad|
7--1-1-5 a a sa-i-ka-pu-wu| at ang sangikapuwu|
7--1-1-5 a di na-ka-a-a-la | ang di nakaaalam|
7--1-1-5 a ma i-ka -wa-wa-la| ay may ikaw awala|
7--1-2-1-1-2 a sa-bi i a di-yu | ang sabi i ang diyus|
7--1-2-1-3 ma a-da na i-hu-hu| may adaw na ihuhu|
7--1-2-2-2 a di-yu i-sa la-ma | ang diyus isa lamang|
7--1-2-4 a a-mi ka-sa-la-na | ang aming kasalanan|
7--1-2-4 a a-ti pa-ngi-nu-u | ang ating pangin uun|
7--1-2-4 a pu-nu ka-sa-la-na | ang punung kasalanan|
7--1-2-4 a sa -ta i-li-si-ya| ang santa iglisiya|
7--1-2-4 a u-na ka-sa-la-na | ang una kasalanan|
7--1-2-4 a wa-la tu-tu-lu-ya | ang walang tutuluyan|
7--1-2-4 na a-ti pa-ngi-nu-u | nangating panginuun|
7--1-2-4 sa sa-tu a-pu-tu-li | sa santus apustulis|
7--1-3-1-2 a bi-ya-ga na ta-wu| ang binyagan na tawu|
7--1-3-1-2(2) a ka-pu-wa mu ta-wu| ang kapuwa mu tawu|
7--1-3-1-2 a ka-ta-a na la-ma | ang katawan na lamang|
7--1-3-1-2 a pa-pa-su na mu-li| at papasuk na muli|
7--1-3-3 a i-ka-wa pi-su-na| ang ikalwa pidsuna|
7--1-3-3 ku ma-si-si ma-sa- ki | kung magsising masa kit|
7--1-4-2 na ma-i-ka-lu a-da | nang magikatlung adaw|
7--1-4-2 a ka- ha-li-li n i-ya| ang kahalili niya|
7--1-4-2 a ka-lu-lu-wa na-ti | ang kaluluwa natin|
7--1-4-2 a na-ka-sa-la a-ku| ang nagkasala aku|
7--1-4-2 a na-ka-ta-a ta-wu| ang nagkatawan tawu|
7--1-4-2 (2) a pa-ka-di-yu ni-ya| ang pagkad iyus niya|
7--1-4-2 (2) a pa-ka-ta-wu ni-ya| ang pagkatawu niya|
7--1-4-2 a sa-li-bu-ta ba-ya | ang sanlibutang bayan|
7--1-4-2 a ti-na-ta-wa na-mi | ang tinatawag namin|
7--1-4-2 (2) na ma-i-ka-lu a-da | nang maikatlung adaw|
7--1-4-2 na pa-ka-ma-ta ni-ya| nang pagkamatay niya|
7--1-4-2 na ma-gu-gu-la na-ti | nang magugulang natin|
7--1-5-1 (2) na ma-ka-pa-nga-na na| nang makapanganak na|
7--1-6 a ka-a-wa-a-ga-wa| ang kaawaangawa|
7--1-6 a ka-pa-na-hi-li-a | ang kapanahilian|
7--1-6 a pa-pa-pa-ki-na-ba | ang pagpapakinabang|
7--2-1-2-2 hu-wa mu ka-mi i-wa | huwag mu kami iwan|
7--2-1-3-1 pa-da na ka-ta-a mu| pada nang katawan mu|
7--2-1-4 a-ku ma ka-sa-la-na | akuy may kasalan an|
7--2-1-4 bu-ku ka pi-na-pa-la| bukud kang pinagpala|
7--2-1-4 da-wa a i-nu-wi-a | dalwa ang inuwian|
7--2-1-4 hu-wa ka ma-ki-a-pi | huwag ka makiapid|
7--2-1-4 tu-bu su ka-sa-la-na | tubus su kasalanan|
7--2-2-1-2 a-nu ka-ya a di-yu | anu kaya ang diyus|
7--2-2-1-2 di-li ta-lu a di-yu | dili tatlu ang diyus|
7--2-2-1-2 pa-da du-u sa la-ngi | pada duun sa langit|
7--2-2-1-2 si-nu ka-ya a hu-ku | sinu kaya ang hukum|
7--2-2-1-2 ta-lu ka-ya a di-yu | tatlu kaya ang diyus|
7--2-2-3 bi-si na-ma tu-tu-u| bisi namang tutuu|
7--2-5 a-ku ma-ka-sa-la-na | akuy makasala nan|
7--2-5 ba-ya ka-ha-pi-ha-pi | bayang kah apishapis|
7--2-5 di-li na-a -a-la-ma | dili naaalaman|
7--3-1-1-2 da-la-wi a ma hi-da | dalawin ang may hidap|
7--3-1-1-2 (2) i-bi-i mu a di-yu | ibigin mu ang diyus|
7--3-1-1-2 i-ha-yi mu sa di-yu | ihayin mu sa diyus|
7--3-1-1-2 i-li-ngu mu sa a-mi | ilingun mu sa amin|
7--3-1-3 na-bu-ha na na-u-li| nabuhay na naguli|
7--3-2-2 na-da-ma pa-la ta-yu| nadamay pala tayu|
7--3-4 (2) na-bu-ha na-na-u-li| nabuhaynanaguli|
7--4-1-2(2) i-pi-na-ku sa ku-du | ipinaku sa kudus|
7--4-1-2 la-bi-a-pa na ba-ga | labingapat na bagay|
7--4-1-2 ma-ga-ga-wa na la-ngi | manggagawa nang langit|
7--4-1-2 (3) ma-pa-da-ti ma sa-a | ma(g)padating man saan|
7--4-1-2 (2) na-lu-lu-lu sa ka-na | nalulukluk sa kanan|
7--5-1-1 ki-ni-ti-ya-nu ka na| kinitiyanu ka na|
7--5-2 pi-na-la-la- nga si-ya| pinaglalangan siya|
7--7 su-ma-sa-pa -la-ta -ya| sumasangp alataya|

Table 7: 7 Syllable Segment Patterns in DC

15--1-2-1-1-2-4-2-2 a sa-bi i a a-ti pa-ngi-nu-u si-su ki-ta| ang sabi i ang ating panginuun sisu kita|
15--2-2-1-5-1-4 a-nu ka-ya a i-ka-wa-wa-la na ka-sa-la-na | anu kaya ang ikawawala nang kasalanan|
16--7-1-2-4-2 na-ku-na-ku-ku-pi-sa sa a-ti pa-ngi-nu-u di-yu | nagkunakukumpisal sa ating panginuun diyus|
17--2-4-1-2-1-2-2-1-2 a-nu i-ga-ga-ti na di-yu sa ma-nga ba-na na ta-wu| anung igaganti nang diyus sa manga banal na tawu|
17--6-1-2-4-2-2 su-ma-pa-la-ta-ya a a-ti pa-ngi-nu-u si-si ku-tu| sumangpalataya ang ating panginuun sisi kutu|
18--1-1-2-4-1-2-4-1-2 na di mu-li ma-ka-sa-la sa di-yu ma-pa-da-ti ma sa-a | na di muli magkasala sa diyus magpadating man saan|
19--1-3-1-1-2-4-2-2-1-2 na na-ma-ta na- a a-ti pa-ngi-nu-u si-su ki-tu sa ku-du | nang namatay nang ang ating panginuun sisu kitu sa
kudus|
19--2-5-1-2-1-2-2-4 a-nu i-pa-du-du-sa na di-yu sa ma-nga ta-wu ta-pa-la-sa | anung ipadudusa nang diyus sa manga tawu tampalasan|
20--2-1-2-4-1-5-1-4 di-tu sa sa -ta i-li-si-ya ma i-ka-wa-wa-la na ka- sa-la-na | ditu sa santa iglisiya may ikawawala na ng kasalanan|

Table 8: 15-20 Syllable Segment Patterns in DC

33 di-yu[s]||
20 ta-wu||
18 ni-ya||
17 ki-tu||
14 ka-sa-la-na[n]||
13 la-ha[t]||
13 su-ma[ ng]-pa-la-t a-ya||
12 mu||
12 sa[n]-tu||
12 tu-tu-u||
11 la-ngi[t]||
152 ||a[ng] 10 ki-ni-ti-ya-nu||
46 ||na[ng] 10 na-u-na||
42 ||a[t] 10 si-su||
27 ||sa 9 a-nu[ng]
14 ||su-ma[ng]-pa-la-ta-ya 9 ma-di-ya||
9 ||a-mi[n] 9 na-ti[n]||
9 ||a-nu[ng] 8 a-mi[n]||
8 ||a[y] 7 a-ma||
8 ||bi-si 7 i-ka[l]-wa||
8 ||ku[ng] 6 i[g]-li-si-ya||
8 ||u-u 6 i-ka[t]-lu||
7 ||i-na 6 ku-du[s]||
7 ||ya-di[ng] 6 lu-pa||
6 ||a-nu 6 na-nga-ma-t a[y]
6 ||ka[y] 6 si-ya||
5 ||a-ku[y] 6 u-u||
5 ||di-li 5 i[m]-pi-nu||
5 ||ma-ka-ga-ga-wa 5 i-ka-li-ma||
5 ||pa-da 5 i-ka-pa[t]||
5 ||si-ya[ng] 5 na-ma[n]||
5 ||su-ma-sa[ng]-pa-l a-ta-ya 5 na-mi[n]||
5 sa-a[n]||

Table 9: Words with a frequency of Table 10: Words with a frequency of

appearance of five or more which are appearance of five or more which are
positioned after a danda marker positioned directly before a danda
marker
33 || a i ka
22 pa ngi nu u
20 a ti pa ngi nu u
20 ka sa la na
20 pa la ta ya
18 si suki tu
17 ka sa la na ||
17 si suki tu ||
15 ma pa la ta
14 su ma pa la ta ya
14 || su ma pa la ta ya
13 a ti pa ngi nu u si su ki
13 na ta wu ||
13 su ma pa la ta ya ||
13 || su ma pa la ta ya ||
12 a a ti pa ngi nu u si
12 a ti pa ngi nuu si su ki tu
12 pa ngi nu u si su ki tu
12 tu tu u ||
11 a di yu ||
11 a ti pa ngi nuu si su ki tu ||
11 di yu || a
11 ka lulu wa
11 ki ni ti ya nu
10 a a ti pa ngi nu u si su ki tu
10 ki ni ti ya nu ||
10 na u na ||
10 ni ya || a
10 sa la ha ||

Table 11: Most frequent syllable

sequences with a minimum length of 4
symbols including danda marker in DC
Table 12: Breath intake and phrase length values of the opening lines of the
Manobo Tolalang epic