The Etymology of Maynila: A Linguistic and Geographic Reassessment

The Etymology of Maynila: A Linguistic and Geographic Reassessment

 By Amir Emmanuel 

Introduction

The etymology of Maynila (modern-day Manila) has been the subject of debate among historians, linguists, and cultural scholars. The city’s name, as it is known today, appears to be a Hispanized or evolved form of an older indigenous term. While widely accepted explanations propose that Maynila derives from either the nilad plant or the Sanskrit word nilā (indigo), a more linguistically and geographically coherent theory suggests that Maynila originates from Maydila, meaning “at the tongue” in Tagalog.

This paper examines the competing theories regarding the origin of Maynila, analyzing their linguistic feasibility and historical plausibility. It argues that Maynila as a corruption of Maydila—a reference to the tongue-like land formation near the Pasig River—offers a more consistent explanation within the framework of Philippine place-naming conventions and phonetic evolution.

The Nilad Theory: A Romanticized Etymology

One of the most popular explanations for the name Maynila is that it comes from nilad, a local mangrove shrub (Scyphiphora hydrophyllacea) that grows in brackish water and coastal areas. Early Spanish chroniclers, including Emma Helen Blair, recorded that nilad was a plant found along the shores of Manila Bay and suggested that the city’s name may have derived from the phrase "May Nilad" (“There is nilad”).

However, despite the appeal of this explanation, there are significant linguistic inconsistencies. The main issue lies in the phonetic transformation from nilad to Maynila. In Tagalog, the final consonant d in nilad would not naturally disappear in standard phonetic evolution. If the name had indeed come from nilad, one would expect it to retain its final consonant, resulting in Maynilad rather than Maynila. Furthermore, nilad was never recorded as a highly significant plant in pre-colonial Manila, and there is little direct evidence linking it to the original name of the settlement.

Additionally, the phrase May nilad itself sounds unnatural in Tagalog. In the structure of native place names, the phrase may (“there is”) is typically followed by a noun that describes a geographic or cultural feature, such as Maypajo (“There is pajo [a type of tree]”) or Mayhaligue (“There is haligue [wooden posts]”). If the name Maynila truly originated from nilad, one would expect the grammatical construction to follow a pattern closer to Maynilad rather than Maynila.

The Nilā Theory: An Overextended Sanskrit Connection

A second theory proposes that Maynila is derived from the Sanskrit word nilā, which means “blue” or “indigo.” This theory suggests that Maynila may have been named after the dye-producing nilā plant (Indigofera tinctoria), which was a valuable commodity in Southeast Asian trade. Sanskrit words influenced many Philippine languages through early trade and religious contact, especially via Malay intermediaries, and it is not implausible that some foreign linguistic elements made their way into local toponyms.

However, a major issue with this theory is that in Tagalog, the word for indigo is tayum, not nilā. If the name Maynila were truly based on the concept of indigo dye, it would have been more likely to follow the structure of Maytayum or Tayuman (as seen in the place name Tayuman in modern Manila). Additionally, Kapampangan, which had significant linguistic influence over the northern parts of Manila before Spanish colonization (with the Pasig River as its boundary), uses tayum rather than nilā to refer to indigo.

This raises a fundamental question: if Maynila truly derived from nilā, why did local linguistic patterns not reflect this term? In contrast, other Philippine place names that reference colors or dye-making processes, such as Tayuman (a place associated with indigo dyeing), use the indigenous term tayum. The absence of nilā in the native lexicon undermines the credibility of this etymology.

The Maydila Hypothesis: A Geographically and Linguistically Coherent Explanation

A more convincing etymology for Maynila is that it originates from "Maydila", meaning “at the tongue” in Tagalog. According to Alexander Salt, the word dila translates to “tongue,” and it is plausible that this name was originally a geographic descriptor referring to the tongue-like shape of the land where Manila was established. This would align with the way indigenous peoples often named places based on their geographic features. 

1. Geographic Justification: The Tongue-Like Landform

Manila is located at the mouth of the Pasig River, which feeds into Manila Bay. The area where early settlements formed was shaped by the river’s flow, creating a land formation that jutted out into the bay—resembling a tongue. In Philippine naming conventions, it was common to describe places based on their physical characteristics, as seen in:

 • Navotas (from butas, meaning “hole” or “gap”)

 • Cavite (from kawit, meaning “hook”) 

 • Cebu (from sugbu, referring to burnt land or the act of burning)

 • Muntinlupa (meaning “little land” or “small soil area”)

Given this pattern, Maydila as “the place of the tongue” makes logical sense as a descriptor of the landform at the mouth of the Pasig River.

2. Linguistic Evolution: The Loss of “D” in Maydila

The transformation from Maydila to Maynila follows a common phonetic pattern in Tagalog, where certain consonants are softened or dropped over time. This phonetic simplification can be observed in various Philippine place names, where sounds are altered for ease of pronunciation. The omission of the 'd' in Maydila aligns with this pattern, making Maynila a natural linguistic evolution.

Additionally, Spanish colonial phonetic influence may have contributed to this transformation. Early Spanish records often reflect approximations of indigenous names, modifying their pronunciation to fit Spanish phonology. This process likely played a role in the shift from Maydila to Maynila and eventually to the modern form Manila.

Conclusion: A Reassessment of the Name’s Origins 

While the nilad and nilā theories have been widely circulated, both present linguistic and historical inconsistencies. The nilad theory fails to account for the unexplained phonetic change from nilad to Maynila, while the nilā theory overlooks the fact that the indigenous term for indigo was tayum, not nilā. 

In contrast, the Maydila hypothesis aligns with both linguistic patterns and geographic naming conventions in the Philippines. The land formation at the mouth of the Pasig River naturally resembles a tongue, making Maydila a descriptive and logical name for the area. The phonetic simplification from Maydila to Maynila follows established linguistic shifts observed in other Philippine place names. 

Thus, it is most reasonable to conclude that Maynila is a linguistic corruption of Maydila, shaped over centuries by local phonetic evolution and Spanish colonial adaptation. This explanation not only adheres to indigenous naming conventions but also offers a geographically sound and linguistically plausible account of how Manila came to be called Maynila. 

References

Blair, E. H. (1903). The Philippine Islands. Vol. 29. Cleveland: Arthur H. Clark Company. Potet, Jean-Paul G., A Grammatical Pandect of Written Tagalog. Printing: 2024-12-24. Pang, A. (1972). Philippine Vocabulary and Etymology. Manila: Philippine Educational Publishing Company. 
Peralta, Jesus T.; Salazar, Lucila A. (1974). Pre-Spanish Manila: A Reconstruction of the Pre-history of Manila. National Historical Commission. 
Reid, L. (2009). Tagalog and Philippine Historical Linguistics. Canberra: Australian National University Press. 

The Curse of Ignorance and Malice in Leadership

The Curse of Ignorance and Malice in Leadership

Leadership is a delicate balance of competence and integrity, and the absence of either often leads to catastrophic consequences. Senator Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa once remarked, “It is better to be ignorant but pure of heart than intelligent with malicious intent.” Meanwhile, English writer Samuel Johnson offered a more nuanced perspective: “Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, while knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful.” These statements capture two sides of a debate about the traits society values—or tolerates—in its leaders. Yet, both leave unanswered the question of what happens when leaders lack both competence and moral integrity, a combination that is far too common in politics. 

Dela Rosa’s sentiment appears to romanticize ignorance, suggesting that a leader’s good intentions can compensate for their lack of knowledge or ability. While this perspective may hold some appeal in an idealized world, it is dangerously naïve in practice. Governance requires more than good intentions—it demands competence, expertise, and strategic thinking. Ignorance in leadership often leads to weak, misguided policies that fail to address systemic issues. Worse still, Dela Rosa’s statement has had the unfortunate effect of turning people into fools, encouraging them to believe that ignorance is excusable in public service. This narrative conveniently ignores the reality that Dela Rosa himself contributed to. 

Dela Rosa is no innocent bystander in the failures of leadership. As a former police chief and now a senator, he was a staunch defender of former President Rodrigo Duterte and his soiled legacy. The bloody “war on drugs,” a cornerstone of Duterte’s administration, left thousands dead, fostered a culture of impunity, and drew widespread condemnation for human rights abuses. In defending Duterte, Dela Rosa not only perpetuated this dark legacy but also betrayed the public trust by aligning himself with policies that prioritized fear over justice. 

Ironically, Duterte attempted to cast himself in the mold of the late Senator Jose Avelino, known for his brutal honesty about the nature of power. Duterte once declared that he was willing to go to hell “so that people will live in paradise.” This echoes Avelino’s infamous remark: 

“Why did you have to order an investigation, Honorable Mr. President? If you cannot prevent abuses, you must at least tolerate them. What are we in power for? We are not hypocrites. Why should we pretend to be saints when, in reality, we are not? We are not angels. When we die, we will all go to hell. It is better to be in hell because in that place, there are no investigations, no secretary of justice, no secretary of the interior to go after us.” 

Duterte, much like Avelino, framed his actions as a necessary evil, suggesting that his willingness to embrace damnation was a sacrifice for the greater good. However, this self-styled martyrdom collapses under scrutiny. Far from leading to a “paradise” for the Filipino people, Duterte’s tenure deepened societal divisions, fostered lawlessness, and left behind a trail of broken families and communities. His invocation of hell as a refuge for the corrupt and the bold only underscores the cynicism that permeated his administration. 

This scenario highlights the devastating consequences of combining ignorance with malicious intent. Leaders who lack the knowledge to govern effectively but possess the willingness to enable harmful policies are doubly dangerous. Their actions not only fail to solve societal problems but actively create new ones. The damage inflicted during Dela Rosa’s tenure as police chief and Duterte’s presidency serves as a stark reminder of this dynamic, as communities were left grappling with violence, fear, and a weakened rule of law. 

The phenomenon of leaders feigning purity while engaging in corruption is particularly troubling. It reflects a society that values image over substance, allowing mediocrity and malice to thrive under the guise of respectability. As some have noted, “A fool who pretends to be clean is the worst kind of fool.” Such leaders undermine the very foundations of governance, eroding trust in institutions and perpetuating cycles of injustice. 

Yet Avelino’s candid acknowledgment of political realities also serves as a warning. His words challenge citizens to confront the uncomfortable truths about power and its abuses. While his cynicism might seem like a justification for wrongdoing, it also highlights the urgency of demanding more from those in authority. 

To break free from this cycle of ignorance and malice, societies must demand leadership that embodies both competence and integrity. Knowledge without integrity breeds exploitation, while integrity without knowledge leads to ineffectiveness. True leadership requires a balance of both—a commitment to public service grounded in expertise and ethical principles. Anything less is an affront to the responsibilities of governance and a betrayal of the public trust. 

Ultimately, the combination of ignorance and malice is a curse upon any nation. It erodes the fabric of society, leaving citizens disillusioned and institutions weakened. Leaders must be held accountable, not just for their intentions but for their actions and their results. Avelino’s grim honesty, Duterte’s hollow promises, and Dela Rosa’s enabling of abuses serve as a collective warning and a call to action: the time has come to stop excusing incompetence and corruption and to demand leadership that is capable, just, and truly worthy of the people’s mandate. 

As Drones Washed Over in Masbate's Shores – A Call for Self-Reliance in Philippine Defense

As Drones Washed Over in Masbate's Shores –

A Call for Self-Reliance in Philippine Defense

The recent recovery of foreign drones off the coast of Masbate, including a suspected Chinese submarine drone in 2025 and a US aerial target drone in 2012, highlights more than just the country’s geographical significance. It underscores a critical reality: the Philippines remains caught between global superpowers, reliant on their advanced technology, and vulnerable to their geopolitical maneuvering.

Rather than viewing these events as isolated incidents, they should serve as a wake-up call. The discovery of these drones presents an opportunity for the Philippines to reflect on its defense capabilities and its overreliance on foreign nations. If the country is serious about securing its sovereignty and strengthening its national defense, it must take bold steps toward self-reliance and innovation.

The Masbate Drones: Missed Opportunities?

The recovery of drones in Masbate highlights the technological disparities between the Philippines and the superpowers operating in its waters. The Chinese HY-119 submarine drone, equipped with sophisticated navigation and reconnaissance capabilities, demonstrates a level of technological advancement that the Philippines can only aspire to.

Similarly, the US BQM-74E aerial target drone recovered in 2012, though not as advanced as the Chinese drone, still provided a glimpse into the operational practices of a global military power. Both drones represent opportunities to learn, adapt, and innovate.

Unfortunately, the country’s traditional response to such discoveries has been to hand them over to their respective countries of origin or store them as mere displays. While these actions may maintain diplomatic ties, they do little to address the Philippines’ glaring technological gap.

The Problem with Dismissing “Made in China”

It is not uncommon for people to dismiss Chinese-made technology as inferior, often ridiculing it as “fake” or “frustrated copies” of American counterparts. These criticisms are frequently laced with ideological biases, reducing Chinese advancements to nothing more than products of a “commie” regime that has to be maligned.

However, such oversimplifications ignore an essential truth: China’s modernization, particularly in the realm of military technology, was facilitated in part by the West. The United States and its allies, through decades of economic and technological cooperation, helped lay the groundwork for the innovations we now see emerging from China.

The Chinese drone found in Masbate, marked “HY-119,” is not just a random object. It represents the culmination of years of focused investment in research, development, and strategic thinking. Instead of dismissing it as inferior, the Philippines should study it and recognize the significance of China’s technological leap.

The lesson here is clear: rather than mocking the progress of others, the Philippines must ask itself why it has remained technologically dependent. More importantly, it must decide how it can break free from this cycle.

Learning from Taiwan’s Example

The Philippines can draw valuable lessons from its northern neighbor, Taiwan, which has become a model of resilience and innovation in defense. Despite facing constant threats from China, Taiwan has built one of the most advanced and self-reliant defense industries in the region. Its indigenous missile systems, drones, and naval technologies rival those of global powers, demonstrating the potential of strategic investment and long-term planning.

Taiwan’s achievements stem from consistent investment in research and development, as seen in its domestically developed Hsiung Feng missile systems, Sky Bow missile defense systems, and advanced naval fleet. These innovations have allowed Taiwan to maintain a credible deterrent against a far larger adversary. Moreover, Taiwan prioritizes nurturing local talent and fostering public-private partnerships, creating a thriving ecosystem of scientists, engineers, and manufacturers contributing to its defense capabilities. By promoting a culture of innovation and focusing on asymmetrical warfare strategies, Taiwan has maximized its strengths, developing swarming drones, mobile missile systems, and small, highly capable naval vessels tailored to its security needs.

The Philippines, by contrast, remains heavily reliant on foreign military assistance and secondhand equipment, which limits its ability to address its defense requirements independently. Drawing inspiration from Taiwan, the Philippines could take significant steps to build its own robust defense industry by investing in research and development, fostering collaboration between universities, private industries, and the military, and encouraging local innovation.

Taiwan’s example proves that even under severe external pressure, a nation can develop formidable capabilities when it prioritizes self-reliance and ingenuity. For the Philippines, adopting this approach would mean reducing its dependency on foreign powers and asserting greater control over its defense posture. If Taiwan can succeed under more challenging circumstances, there is no reason why the Philippines cannot follow a similar path to secure its sovereignty and protect its interests.

Why Not Study and Reverse Engineer?

Rather than treating these drones as foreign debris, the Philippines should view them as rare opportunities to understand modern military systems. Reverse engineering, a practice used by nations like China and India to develop their own technologies, could be a game-changer for the country.

By carefully studying these drones, Filipino engineers and scientists could gain insights into navigation systems, surveillance technologies, and other critical components. These learnings could form the basis for developing indigenous drones, naval equipment, and communication systems tailored to the country’s needs.

The Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) has made strides in defense modernization, but much of its equipment remains outdated or imported. Locally developed drones, while promising, are still rudimentary compared to the sophisticated technologies displayed by the Chinese and US drones. Studying these recovered devices could help bridge that gap.

Breaking Free from Dependency

For decades, the Philippines has relied on foreign powers for its defense needs, often receiving hand-me-downs or secondhand equipment. While these arrangements have provided short-term solutions, they have perpetuated a dependency that undermines the country’s sovereignty.

The Philippines’ position as a key player in the Pacific has made it a pawn in the geopolitical strategies of global powers. The discovery of the Chinese drone underscores the tensions between Manila and Beijing over the South China Sea, while the US drone highlights the Philippines’ continued reliance on American military support.

To break free from this cycle, the Philippines must take ownership of its defense capabilities. This means investing in local research and development, fostering partnerships between universities and the military, and creating opportunities for Filipino talent to thrive.

A Path to Self-Reliance

Self-reliance in defense is not just about technology; it is about asserting national sovereignty and pride. The Philippines has the talent and resources to build a stronger and more independent defense posture. What it needs is the political will and strategic vision to make it happen.

The drones recovered in Masbate are more than just technological curiosities – they are symbols of opportunity. They remind the Philippines of its vulnerabilities, but they also highlight its potential.

If the country is serious about strengthening its defense capabilities, it cannot afford to let these opportunities slip away. It is time for the Philippines to reflect, rethink, and act. Self-reliance is not a distant dream; it is a necessity. The question now is whether the Philippines will rise to the challenge or continue to rely on others to secure its future. 

A New Year, New Trials, New Endeavours

A New Year, New Trials, New Endeavours

By Bishop Antonio Nercua Ablon

Translated from Filipino by Lualhati Madlangawa-Guererro

As we enter this new year, let us not neglect to recall the tribulations of the past—the enduring want of justice, the oppression of the impoverished, and the perverse systems that continue to afflict our land. Yet, in spite of these burdens, I entreat that the light of truth, the fortitude of resolve, and the fervour of action may remain steadfast within our hearts. 

May each of us aspire to be part of a greater movement—a cause that pursueth not merely individual betterment, but the noble transformation of society. A life of simplicity and unyielding labour must continue as the foundation of our purpose. Let us not yield to fear or doubt; rather, let us foster the bravery to confront falsehood and uphold righteousness. 

In this new year, may we bind ourselves more firmly in unity, striving for the attainment of true liberty and justice for all. Let us labour diligently in spreading enlightenment—amongst our kin, our friends, and our communities—and stand unshaken in our principles, even though it may provoke enmity or dissent. For in each defiance, in each trial, doth a seed of reform take root. 

The joy upon the faces of those we aid, the awakening of minds to truth, and every step towards a society governed by equity and justice, are blessings sufficient to sustain our resolve. The struggle for a land free, equal, and just cannot be accomplished within the span of a single year; nevertheless, each day is a vital stride forward. 

To all who stand by us in this noble cause and toil alongside us in action—a most joyous New Year! Together, let us dedicate ourselves to shaping this year into one of hope, endeavour, and victory for our nation.