[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 590: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 646: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 1068: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at [ROOT]/includes/functions.php:3839)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 1068: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at [ROOT]/includes/functions.php:3839)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 1068: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at [ROOT]/includes/functions.php:3839)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/functions.php on line 5129: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at [ROOT]/includes/functions.php:3839)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/functions.php on line 5129: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at [ROOT]/includes/functions.php:3839)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/functions.php on line 5129: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at [ROOT]/includes/functions.php:3839)
Toki Pona Forums • if 'ni pu' made restrictive relative clauses
Page 1 of 1

if 'ni pu' made restrictive relative clauses

Posted: Thu Dec 05, 2013 5:46 pm
by janKipo
ni li jan Saki.
ni li tomo ni pu jan Saki li tomo e ona
ni li pan ni pu ona li awen lon tomo ni pu jan Saki li tomo e ona
ni li soweli lili ni pu ona li moku e pan ni pu ona li awen lon tomo ni pu jan Saki li tomo e ona
ni li soweli linja ni pu ona li moli e soweli lili ni pu ona li moku e pan ni pu ona li awen lon tomo ni pu jan Saki li tomo e ona
ni li soweli selo ni pu ona li alasa e soweli linja ni pu ona li moli e soweli lili ni pu ona li moku e pan ni pu ona li awen lon tomo ni pu jan Saki li tomo e ona
o awen e sama

Re: if 'ni pu' made restrictive relative clauses

Posted: Thu Dec 05, 2013 7:52 pm
by janKipo
Or:
jan meli pi sike mute li tawa esun li esun e soweli moku li tawa toma poka ona. tu ni li kama ln sinoin palisa.
tawa soweli la meli li toki e nimi ni “soweli moku o tawa sewi poka ante pi sinpin palisa anu mi kama ala tawa tomo lon tenpo pimeja ni” soweli li ala.
tawa soweli selo la meli li toki e nimi “soweli selo o uta e soweli moku ni pu ona li tawa sewi ala poka ante pi sinpin palisa anu mi kama ala tawa tomo lon tenpo pimeja ni” soweli selo li ala.
tawa palisa la mei li toki e nimi “palisa o palisa [/utala] e soweli selo ni pu ona li uta ala e soweli moku ni pu ona li tawa sewi ala poka ante pi sinpin palisa anu mi kama ala tawa tomo lon tenpo pimeja ni”. palisa li ala.
tawa seli la meli li toki e nimi “seli o seli e palisa ni pu ona palisa ala e soweli selo ni pu ona li uta ala e soweli moku ni pu ona li tawa sewi ala poka ante pi sinpin palisa anu mi kama ala tawa tomo lon tenpo pimeja ni” seli li ala.
tawa telo la meli li toki e nimi “telo o telo e seli ni pu ona seli ala e palisa ni pu ona palisa ala e soweli selo ni pu ona li uta ala e soweli moku ni pu ona li tawa sewi ala poka ante pi sinpin palisa anu mi kama ala tawa tomo lon tenpo pimeja ni”
tawa mani moku la meli li toki e nimi “mani moku o moku e telo ni pu ona li telo ala e seli ni pu ona seli ala e palisa ni pu ona palisa ala e soweli selo ni pu ona li uta ala e soweli moku ni pu ona li tawa sewi ala poka ante pi sinpin palisa anu mi kama ala tawa tomo lon tenpo pimeja ni” mani moku li ala.
tawa jan pi moli mani la meli li toki e nimi “jan pi moli mani o moli e mani moku ni pu ona li moku ala e telo ni pu ona li telo ala e seli ni pu ona seli ala e palisa ni pu ona palisa ala e soweli selo ni pu ona li uta ala e soweli moku ni pu ona li tawa sewi ala poka ante pi sinpin palisa anu mi kama ala tawa tomo lon tenpo pimeja ni” jan pi moli mani li ala.
tawa linja len la meli li toki e nimi “linja len o sewi e jan pi moli mani ni pu ona moli ala e e mani moku ni pu ona li moku ala e telo ni pu ona li telo ala e seli ni pu ona seli ala e palisa ni pu ona palisa ala e soweli selo ni pu ona li uta ala e soweli moku ni pu ona li tawa sewi ala poka ante pi sinpin palisa anu mi kama ala tawa tomo lon tenpo pimeja ni” linja len li ala.
tawa soweli lili la meli li toki e nimi “soweli lili o uta e linja len ni pu ona li sewi ala e jan pi moli mani ni pu ona moli ala e e mani moku ni pu ona li moku ala e telo ni pu ona li telo ala e seli ni pu ona seli ala e palisa ni pu ona palisa ala e soweli selo ni pu ona li uta ala e soweli moku ni pu ona li tawa sewi ala poka ante pi sinpin palisa anu mi kama ala tawa tomo lon tenpo pimeja ni” soweli lili li ala.
tawa soweli linja la meli li toki e nimi “soweli linja o alasa e soweli lili ni pu ona li uta ala e linja len ni pu ona li sewi ala e jan pi moli mani ni pu ona moli ala e e mani moku ni pu ona li moku ala e telo ni pu ona li telo ala e seli ni pu ona seli ala e palisa ni pu ona palisa ala e soweli selo ni pu ona li uta ala e soweli moku ni pu ona li tawa sewi ala poka ante pi sinpin palisa anu mi kama ala tawa tomo lon tenpo pimeja ni”
soweli linja li toki e nimi “ken la sina pana e telo mama tawa mi la”. meli li pana e telo mama tawa soweli linja. soweli linja li open alasa e soweli lili. soweli lili li open uta e linja len. linja len li open sewi e jan pi moli man. jan pi moli mani li open moli e mani moku. mani moku li open moku e telo. telo li open telo e seli. seli li open seli e palisa. palisa li open palisa e soweli selo. soweli selo li open uta e soweli moku. soweli moku li tawa sewi poka ante pi sinpin palisa.
tenpo pimea ni la jan meli pi sike mute li kama tawa tomo.

Of course, if efficiency experts got in on things, we could drop the 'ni' and all the initial 'ona's (and maybe even the 'li's?)

Re: if 'ni pu' made restrictive relative clauses

Posted: Fri Dec 13, 2013 11:11 am
by jan_Pusa
mi pilin e ni: sina wile sitelen e sitelen ni li lon toki "jan nasa li wile ante e toki pona".

Re: if 'ni pu' made restrictive relative clauses

Posted: Fri Dec 13, 2013 12:03 pm
by janKipo
ken la. taso mi utala toki ala tawa ni: jan li wile kepeken sama ni e nimi 'ni pu'. ante la mi kama taso e ni: jan li ken lukin e ni: kepeken ni li sama ni.

Re: if 'ni pu' made restrictive relative clauses

Posted: Sat Dec 14, 2013 11:52 am
by janMato
So far toki pona has evolved out of sloppy writing. I think the "tense" and "adverb" system evolved that way, in some of the oldest archives there was an argument as to if la-fragments were legit-- they became legit through heavy use. Ditto for the number system, luka, if I remember correctly came from some random user trying to express their age. Why should those who are careful and don't make "mistakes" be excluded from the game? (or make "mistakes" but are conscious of them)

Anyhow, pu is a comma (canonical), a comma in English (one of the 3 languages jan Sonja speaks fluently) can mean "that", so it isn't like there isn't any support for this idea, it's just that jan Sonja never "finished" the idea.

Grammar question: whats the difference between a restrictive relative cause and some other relative clause? I just looked it up... non-restrictive is parenthetical information (who happens to have a hat on) vs restrictive (who is the 3rd of my six brothers)... this looks exactly like the fine sort of distinction that toki pona as a whole would fail to make. We fail to distinguish all sorts of sutleties-- for example we can't tell if anaphoric ni, ona refer to things in the past or things upcoming, although stylistically, I tend to use ona for past and ni for upcoming & ni: to emphasize upcoming. We fail to distinguish between something that is in progress or complete, and so on.** So wouldn't toki pona also fail to distinguish between clausal information that is parenthetical and info that restricts the topic to a particular from a larger set?

** if my analysis of anaphor & time & perfect/impfect are correct or not is beside the point, the point is that toki pona uncontroversially fails to mark for all sorts of fine distinctions.

Re: if 'ni pu' made restrictive relative clauses

Posted: Sat Dec 14, 2013 4:33 pm
by janKipo
Actually, all there is evidence for is that tp makes different things obligatory, or -- better -- leaves different things optional. When the need to introduce a temporal or aspectual or even modal distinction has arisen, tp has come up with the devices needed, whether accidentally or officially (the 'la' fragments seem to have always been there, 'luka' was an early accident and heartily condemned but has survived). In any case, tp already does have restrictive relatives in place. just not as clearly marked nor as differentiated from nonrestrictive (which is often a contextual matter even in English -- do we need and intend the information as part of the identification of the object): replace the 'pu's here with periods and the 'ona's with repetitions of the 'x ni' expression ('ona' is officially always backward looking, anaphoric; cataphoric, forward looking, use is rare, if occurring at all, but the only non-standard use actually commented on is the indefinite third person "one, they", which is, ironically the etymon of the form). (Rhetoric would advise putting the clause first.)
The oldest comments on 'pu' call it, in French, a virgule, an amorphous term covering several comma like punctuations, including ":", the only one to actually occur in official tp, though commas have been used for clarification.

Re: if 'ni pu' made restrictive relative clauses

Posted: Fri Jan 31, 2014 11:15 am
by janMato
re: Commas for clarification
So if particles separate phrases, if someone felt the urge for an addtional separator, it seems like they'd use pi, since it already is such a generic separator. It feels like we already have a particle of last resort.

Re: if 'ni pu' made restrictive relative clauses

Posted: Fri Jan 31, 2014 11:33 am
by janKipo
Well, 'pi' is more a generic joiner than a separator, and is restricted to modifiers. The only separator tp seems to need is one to set off the PP at the end, to prevent the notorious 'jan li pana a sitelen tawa mi' ambiguity. 'pi' would probably make this worse -- or, rather, introduce an whole new possibility.