mi namako

Mind and thought: Wisdom, mental health, cognition, self-talk, consciousness, philosophy, psychology, optimizing your thinking, productivity hacks
Menso kaj penso: Saĝaĵoj, psiĥa sano, kogno, memparolado, psiĥa stato, filozofio, psikologio, rearanĝi sian pensadon, plibonigi sian produktokapablon
jan-ante
Posts: 541
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 4:05 pm

Re: mi namako

Postby jan-ante » Mon Dec 07, 2009 5:33 pm

janKipo wrote:The easy answer is that they don't yet quite know how it works; that is, what the best noun ('kin' hasn't been used as a noun yet, I think) to base it on.

then, how we can say that kin la is established?

Right now, 'kin' seems to confront 'taso' (which doesn't need 'la' for some reason)

grammatically, kin also does not need la. just put it right after the predicate, rather than doing a calque

janKipo
Posts: 2825
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:20 pm

Re: mi namako

Postby janKipo » Mon Dec 07, 2009 8:31 pm

As noted, it is established by being used by basically competent people - norma loquendi: grammar is decided by usage. I know this is a created language, but after a certain point (just where and when is open to some negotiation) it becomes a language simpliciter and then the creation and the creator sorta drop out.

'kin' can, of course, go after the verb, but it is not obvious that that would mean the same thing as 'kin la' in front; it depends on the case. The point is that 'taso' can go in the 'la' slot without the 'la'.

I am still not quite getting what your problem is, apparently, since we seem to talk past one another.

User avatar
jan Josan
Posts: 326
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 12:41 pm
Location: ma tomo Nujoka
Contact:

Re: mi namako

Postby jan Josan » Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:24 pm

For me it the important thing seems to be, if it is used this way, that it doesn't create confusion. So far, it seems kin pairs well with taso, the same as anu pairs with en. If kin could just be placed after the predicate in all situations and create that same meaning, then isn't this true with taso? I don't think this works for either one.

from Pije's lesson 12:
mi pona. taso meli me li pakala (I'm OK. But my girlfriend is injured)
would become:
mi pona. meli mi li pakala taso (I'm OK. My girlfriend is only injured)

now if we could use kin in the same way:
Let's say someone asks if you're going coming out tonight:
A: sina kama ala kama?
and you answer:
B1: kama ala. mi wile lape. kin meli mi li pilin ike.
or
B2: kama ala. mi wile lape. meli mi li pilin ike kin.
The first seems to me to mean "No, I want to sleep and my wife isn't feeling well" or "No, I want to sleep. Also my wife isn't feeling well." and the second "No, I want to sleep. My wife feels horrible." Are these two parallel reasons why you can't come, or does your wife feel horrible that you want to sleep?

I'm starting to wonder not if it should be used in the beginning or not, but if it should be used with or without the la...

janKipo
Posts: 2825
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:20 pm

Re: mi namako

Postby janKipo » Mon Dec 07, 2009 11:34 pm

Let's try more exactly parallel cases after the accident, I say 'mi pona ala. kin la meli mi li pakala.' Exactly parallel, except that for historical reasons 'taso' doesn't need 'la.' The other usages would be 'mi pona ala. meli mi li pakala kin' " I am not well. My wife is injured also." In both the second cases, the question arises of "as opposed to what" = "She is only injured" -- not dead? not drunk? What? Similarly in the second case, "She is injured also" -- as well as drunk? What?
I suspect that the internal versions closest to the external ones are with the quasi-clitic on the subject: 'meli mi taso li pakala' and 'meli mi kin li pakala' "Only my wife is injured" and "My wife also is injured". So, the prenex form is different from being an adverb (though it could be an adverb:
'mi tawa, taso ona li awen'
'mi tawa. ona li awen taso'
but this doesn't work with 'kin,' so I don't have the relations completely worked out . We need more data, which will come with more use).

jan-ante
Posts: 541
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 4:05 pm

Re: mi namako

Postby jan-ante » Tue Dec 08, 2009 1:44 pm

janKipo wrote:As noted, it is established by being used by basically competent people

exactly, the question is the basic competence of those people, if they "don't yet quite know how it works; that is, what the best noun".

jan Josan wrote:B2: kama ala. mi wile lape. meli mi li pilin ike kin.
...
"No, I want to sleep. My wife feels horrible."

kin does not make the word before stronger, it is the job of mute. kin is intended to focus the reader's attention on the word before it

janKipo
Posts: 2825
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:20 pm

Re: mi namako

Postby janKipo » Tue Dec 08, 2009 3:53 pm

Competence is not focused but general, so someone can be quite competent even if he makes occasional mistakes. But, more importantly, he can be thoroughly competent even if he cannot explain why he does some of the things he does competently. So, the fact that he does not know a good noun meaning for 'kin' does not mean that his condition meaning is suspect or incompetent. We may never come up with a good noun meaning for 'kin,' just as we may never come up with a good prepositional meaning for 'akesi,' but that doesn't mean that the uses we do have for them are somehow illegitimate.

User avatar
jan Ote
Posts: 424
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 1:15 am
Location: ma Posuka
Contact:

Re: mi namako

Postby jan Ote » Wed Dec 09, 2009 4:25 am

janKipo wrote:But, more importantly, he can be thoroughly competent even if he cannot explain why he does some of the things he does competently.
"Here I am speaking prose for over forty years without ever realising it!"
Monsieur Jourdain

janKipo
Posts: 2825
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:20 pm

Re: mi namako

Postby janKipo » Wed Dec 09, 2009 10:38 am

precisement. But any native speaker of any language who knows nothing of grammars and phonologies, etc. can do as well.

jan-ante
Posts: 541
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 4:05 pm

Re: mi namako

Postby jan-ante » Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:23 pm

janKipo wrote:Competence is not focused but general, so someone can be quite competent even if he makes occasional mistakes.

yes, this is my point. they have "established" a grammatical error

But, more importantly, he can be thoroughly competent even if he cannot explain why he does some of the things he does competently. So, the fact that he does not know a good noun meaning for 'kin' does not mean that his condition meaning is suspect or incompetent.

here i disagree. he must be able to explain his innovation to be competent for such an innovation. it is his job, nobody else should do it for him

We may never come up with a good noun meaning for 'kin,'

well if one want to use kin la as moreover, the good meaning is really close to mute

janKipo
Posts: 2825
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:20 pm

Re: mi namako

Postby janKipo » Wed Dec 09, 2009 8:43 pm

jan-ante wrote:
janKipo wrote:Competence is not focused but general, so someone can be quite competent even if he makes occasional mistakes.

yes, this is my point. they have "established" a grammatical error

If it is established, it isn't an error -- norma loquendi
But, more importantly, he can be thoroughly competent even if he cannot explain why he does some of the things he does competently. So, the fact that he does not know a good noun meaning for 'kin' does not mean that his condition meaning is suspect or incompetent.

here i disagree. he must be able to explain his innovation to be competent for such an innovation. it is his job, nobody else should do it for him

Norma again -- it is the linguist's job to explain what happened -- as best he can, the speaker's job is just to speak understandably, etc. He may know nothing of what is going on, or, even more likely, get it all wrong.
We may never come up with a good noun meaning for 'kin,'

well if one want to use kin la as moreover, the good meaning is really close to mute

I don't see that, exactly; it seems nearer to 'en' if anything.


Return to “sona pona”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest