ali mute li lon anu seme?

[loteni]

kama pi ali suli li pali e ali mute la mi mute li ken mute lukin e ijo ante.
tan ni la kama pi ali suli li ken mute pali ala e ali mute.

ali mute li lon la ken mute la mi mute li wile oko e ali pi lili mute. taso mi mute li lukin ala e ni. tan ni la ken mute la ali mute li lon ala.

ken la ali mute li lon tan nasin pi lili mute. nasin pi lili mute li ken pali e ali mute. taso ali mute ni li ante.
ali ante pi insa pi ali mute ni li lon ala. ali ante pi insa pi ali mute ni li lon ken taso.

ni ali li nasa tawa mi.

sina mute li toki e seme ?

sina toki e ni: ona li lon anu seme ?

[janKipo]

Sorry I missed this. Irarely see two items in the same section, so I only look at the latest (top) one. I don't think I quite understand this one so let me just recite what I am getting on first reading and we can go on from there.

"If the coming of the great all makes the many alls then we can visually increase other things.
Therefore, the coming of the great all cannot effectively increase the many alls.
If the many alls exist then very possibly we want/need to see very few alls. but we don't see this (them?). So very possibly the many alls don't exist.
Maybe the many alls exist because of a very few routes. Very few routes can make many alls. But these many alls are different.
Different all of if the inside of these many alls don't exist. Different alls of the inside of many alls exist only potentially.
All this is strange to me.
What do you say?
Do you say that this (prob 'ni') is right?"

[loteni]

Hmm, yeah my use of ken mute is a bit strange. If i said "ken ala lukin e" everyone would read that as something like "could not see", I have been wondering about different adjectives there; hence "ken mute lukin e" for something like "could more see" ie it is more likely we would see, I know there are better ways of doing that and maybe I should not use that form like that anyway.

I often use nasin to mean things more like "doctrine/system/theory", I think that would click into place anyway.

The key to this is my use of "ali", I know it is easy to fall into reading that as all. But I was hoping people would select its more normal noun use; "abundance/everything/life/universe". Given that I intend to mean "universe". I hope these statements become clear ?

Thanks again for taking the time to consider and write back about this

Given that though, I'm thinking that I would recognise what is being said from your english translation, which is pretty cool

[janKipo]

I found this piece just before I went to bed and so my hypnogogic state gave me "universe" for "all" and things fell pretty much into place.
'ken mute la' for "probably" has a fairly decent track record, though a recent one. Moving it to the verb slot isn't much of a shock, once the frame get set.
Yes, once 'ali' went to "universe", 'nasin' as "theory" fell into place as well. "I never was tempted to use "everything" since te context just made that weird (not that the reading "all" wasn't weird, but I had just been reading translations of DDJ, so my weird-sensors were damped way down).

Glad I caught at least the general drift. A morning revision would have been even better, I think (universes.theories, etc.)

[loteni]

It is worth noting that contrary to popular belief; ken la is not some idiom for "maybe", it can mean many different things...

often it just setups up a probability measure, so;

ken la == general notion, any probability between 0 and 1, but not 0.
ken ala la == is not the case, impossible, no possibility that it is the case, ie; probability of 0
ken lili la == can be the case, most likely is not ie; probability between 0 and 0.5, but not 0
ken mute la == is most likely the case, ie; probability between 0.5 and 1, but not 0.5
ken ali la == is definitely the case, necessary, all possibilities this is the case; probability of 1.

And these usages are not "new", they are atleast as old as the publication of the official book by Sonja Lang.

You may think lots of new things gradually become standard as time goes on, they are not new, they are people following pu.

[janKipo]

I agree with what 'ken' be used to do. What is not clear is whether any of this usage is in pu or even suggested by pu. If it is, I would appreciate citations, since several people are resisting this move (I am not sure if Lope is one, but it seems likely).

[loteni]

Reading pu, is not like reading a newspaper.

I am not saying that is "all" them phrases can mean, I am saying context free, most probably that is what they will mean *1. This applies no matter if you like it or not. Of course you are free to continue to ignore the official Toki Pona, if you want.

Idioms don't actually exist in the official langauge, that is just a sly way to increase the number of words by fusing compounds. Sonja explains this on page 10, under ******BENEFITS******* so no, tomo tawa is not an idiom or new compound for car, but from the perspective of a passenger it is a nicely fitting phrase. Just as ilo tawa, is not an idiom for car, but from perspective of the driver, its a nicely fitting phrase...etc....

Context, perspective, and most importantly empathy is really key in Toki Pona.

The key phrase in the book, that I think you are have difficulty understanding, is this one, on page 10 ;

"An inherent idea of goodness is transparent throughout the language."

Mediate on "inherent idea", especially "TRANSPARENT" -- it is transparent, you must be able to see this, and it is ; "THROUGHOUT the language" ; yes it is an inherent idea of GOODNESS, obviously throughout the entire language.

*1 -- with the sometimes variants; sometimes averagely, never, sometimes - but not that much, sometimes -- most of the time; sometimes -- all the time...

[EDIT]

I think it is strange anyone would have a problem with that anyway, since it is a most straightforward reading, even with a very rudimentary understanding of the language.
It is worth noting that all the "possible" phrases can be switched with "permissible" as well, since ken as a PRE-VERB is can/may.

I think it is strange also, that I am feeling the need write this :-
The probabilities ive assigned are technically correct, but ofcourse we generally don't use natural language in as much of a restrictive way.
We say "it is definitely the case" -- technically this means it is impossible not be the case; but we say things like that to emphasis our confidence that it is the case, not necessarily to say it is impossible that it wont be. Obviously this applies to how we might use such strict definite probability assignments in the natural flow of conversation.

We go further in language; We say; "I eat all the time"; obviously logically false, but it is a well accepted form of phrase, merely emphasizing I eat alot.
We go even further; we say; "I literally never stop eating"; again obviously logically false, but quite fine in natural conversational friendly speech; just drawing attention to our over emphasis of eating alot.

[loteni]

Goodness ?

If we look in the dictionary it is a meaning for pona ;

pona; ADJECTIVE: good, positive, USEFUL; FRIENDLY, peaceful; simple

Language?

If we look in the dictionary it is a meaning for toki ;

toki; VERB: to communicate, say, speak, say, talk, use language, THINK

Putting this together, we get the implication, that we can think rationally, ie be very logical in thought, from the friendliness of the book.
The book is amazing!

Anyway I did explain this to you before, jan Kipo. And you replied with derision and severe insults, implying I was a crazy lunatic that needed help... That response just perfectly explains why you have such difficulty with the language.