[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 • kulupu nimi tu pi nasin pona
Page 1 of 2

kulupu nimi tu pi nasin pona

Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2016 4:59 am
by loteni
kulupu nimi nanpa wan:

sina ken toki e nasin la ona li nasin pona ala.
sina ken nimi e nimi ona la ona li wan ali ala.

tenpo open la nimi li lon ala.

nimi li tu e nasa ali tawa ijo mute.
nimi li tu e nasa ali tawa kon mute.

taso, nasa en kon li kama tan sama open:
ni li nasin pona.
ona li nasa pi insa kon.
ona li kon pi insa nasa.
ona li nimi e ijo pi nimi ala.
ona li nimi ala e ijo nimi.

wan ni li ali lon tenpo ni la mi mute li sewi e nimi pi ijo.


kulupu nimi nanpa tu:

mi mute li sona e lukin pona tan ni: mi mute li sona e lukin ike.
mi mute li sona e pona tan ni: mi mute li sona e ike.
mi mute li sona e lon tan ni: mi mute li sona e lon ala.
mi mute li sona e jo tan ni: mi mute li sona e jo ala.
ijo ni li pali e sama.
pali pona en pali pi pona ala li pali nimi e sama.
ijo sewi en ijo noka li pali nimi e sama.
sama la tenpo pini en tenpo kama li lawa e sama.

kalama ante li pali e kalama musi.

tenpo ali li ante e lon tan tenpo monsi ona.
ijo ni li mama tan lon.

jan pi sona pona li pana e sona. taso, jan pi sona pona li toki ala e sona ni.
jan pi sona pona li ken e ijo. taso, jan pi sona pona li toki ala e ona tawa sina.
jan pi sona pona li jo e ijo. taso, jan pi sona pona li jo e jo ala.
jan pi sona pona li olin e ijo. taso, jan pi sona pona li jo ala e jo pi ijo ni.

insa nasin ni la mi mute li jo e suli pi tenpo ali tan ni: mi mute li toki ala e ona.

Re: kulupu nimi tu pi nasin pona

Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2016 2:23 pm
by janKipo
Ah, DDJ! If you have some suggestions for improving tp and/or an improved writing system for it, I'll invite you to join the epigones and try to find you a job.
I'll not comment (much) on interpretation since you can find an expert backing just about any possible position. For the archives, I favor a fairly literal approach (sina nasin e nasin la nasin ni li nasin awen ala' say) but in this section, a lot of play is encouraged. But still, ...
Why "is not completely one" (or "totally unified" or whatever) rather than just the parallel "is the good word"?
The next bit is a little harder still to tie to the text (unless you are skipping around and not just going straight through on DDJ1)
Why 'nasa', "strange" (or so -- "mysterious"?) ? 'kon'? "air, spirit" (etc.) yin and yang? Anyhow, what follows is good Daoism if not good translation of the text
prob ''tan open sama' "from the same beginning" (or just 'tan sama') although "initial identity" works, too.
'nimi ijo' ('pi' needs two words after it)
I miss the stuff about being free from desires

Nice to see DDJ2, which gets slighted (not so strange)
but the causations seems to go the other way: '... sona e pona lukin. tan ni la mi mute li sona...' (I skip the "as" part)
'tenpo pini ona' (use of 'monsi' and 'sinpin' with time are not established)
'insa pi nasin ni'?

Re: kulupu nimi tu pi nasin pona

Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2016 3:24 pm
by loteni
Yeah :D DDJ, although that abbreviation confused me at first, since I would use TTC.

I too prefer the more literal. However I only can read translations into English myself. Also I have only one specific translation/interpretation. I am not sure it is particularly good, since I was sure that reading some other translation in the past had me thinking of things that this translation seems bereft of.

So I tried to make a fairly literal translation into toki pona of the translation I have. So many of the concepts I was trying to put into toki pona, were trying to be as close to the the concepts described in the translation I have.

This translation doesnt mention "the good word", but instead uses a phrase like ; "integrated everything".

Yeah nasa (primary adjective) used as a noun to mean "mysteries/mysterious". Right kon (primary noun) used as that noun for "essence/spirit". The two verses in the translation I used dont use the terms "ying and yang".

Ah yeah tan open sama ; is what I need for "from the same beginning". That is much truer to the translation I have.

Ah I am not sure why I decided "nimi pi ijo" instead of "nimi ijo" since the first interpretation of that is what I wanted anyway. I think I was worrying too much about tendencies to blur word types together and get less likely intended meanings.

The direction of the causation there is how it is presented in the book I have. I suppose the intention of the verse is show the direction is "relative to each" or "goes both ways" anyway ?

"ijo ni li pali e sama" -- (something like) these things create each other.
"pali pona en pali pi pona ala li pali nimi e sama" -- (something like) creations of good and creations of not so good, define each other...

"insa pi nasin ni" inside of this system, yeah this is kind of idea of why I used pi earlier with one word.
insa nasin ni -- this only works because of noun usage...
nasin insa ni -- this is probably the best way, and should be understood firstly in the way intended.

Which is best? I'm not entirely sure, its a friendly language but i'd be unsure of what most people would first understand these forms as. I suppose though, your suggestion is clearest.

Also, thank you so much for taking the time to read and comment on this :) I was hoping to get some feedback on this :)

I'm really hoping someone will understand and give feedback on the other post I posted in this section as well ? :)
Who says you cannot speak of those things :)

Re: kulupu nimi tu pi nasin pona

Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2016 3:52 pm
by loteni
I suppose I should just clear up this issue about certain things, specifically pi with just one word after it.

I see no reason to think we can not use pi with one word after it.

ijo moku:
What is this? It covers a broad range of ideas, maybe something edible, a food thing. maybe something that is useful in some way for the action of eating, or maybe it is something that itself eats.

ijo pi moku:
If this carries no difference of meaning and I didnt use that form by mistake, it seems likely that I intend to narrow the semantic scope of what I am referring to. Probably then this is something edible. If it has meaning itself, which I think it does, it can only mean something edible, ie a food thing.

I notice a lot of things like this in online resources of toki pona. Things like

ijo ala --- dont use this because ala on its own means nothing, so ijo is redundant. :O
ijo ala -- means nothing in the sense of not any-thing.
ala -- means nothing in the sense of nothingness.

lest we say sewi li sama ala -- meaning God doesnt exist, when we want to say;
sewi li sama ijo ala -- God is like no-thing, God is a different concept to any other thing, uniquely, God is not like any-thing.

lon ala -- this does not exist, its literally "at nothingness"
lon ijo ala -- this may or may not exist, but its "at not-anything" maybe its fictional... maybe im just expressing that I cant find it, or something...

[added later....]

I suppose I should comment on the idea of colours WRT pi;

O1 pi C1 C2 -- mix the two colours then add them to the Object1
O1 pi C1 pi C2 -- add the two colours separately to the Object1.

Why not just O1 pi C1 en C2, because that means the subject is O1 which is C1 AND C2. This is how en works in pu. This is me talking about an Object of some colour, and some colour itself. Now its hard to think of where I would use such a subject, but why restrict the language? Maybe I am talking about red squirrels and blueness and go on to say they feel similar to me, because previously I have already laid the context of what blueness (sad maybe) feels to me. Since I maybe writing a poem about how I worry about endangered animals...
The only reason other dialects restrict the language in this way is because of some overly restrictive and un-pu use of pi, that for some unknown reason, is deemed more important than clear communication.

In pu - lesson 11 : pi;
This first presents two noun groups that clearly mean one thing, and then introduces the particle "pi" to get them to mean something else.
"The particle pi is used to divide a second noun group that describes a first noun group" It is a semantic tool, to change the meaning of a NP. We may be tempted to think "noun group" implies there must be atleast two words after a pi. And I am pretty convinced that this would almost always be the case. However this restriction is not setup so rigidly, its easy to think in terms of groups, where a group of one is just the smallest group. I see no reason to think that a noun group necessarily need have atleast two words in it. I see good reason to think that as its being introduced as a tool for changing meaning of NP, that groups of one are valid, in the right context. Dogmatically interpreting pi to need two following words far too heavily restricts the language and more importantly breaks its "friendly/cooperative" designation.

For clarity lets see one example of where this is demonstrated in pu;

jan pona mute -- many good people
jan pi pona mute -- a person of much good.

Since ; "the particle pi is used to divide a second noun GROUP that describes a first noun GROUP"
First noun group : "jan"
Second noun group : "pona mute"

This is pretty clearly showing that a noun group can be a group of one.

Re: kulupu nimi tu pi nasin pona

Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2016 1:04 pm
by janKipo
After years of Wade-Giles and Needham, pinyin took me a while to absorb, but I am fairly thoroughly switched now, so that "Tao teh ching/king" just looks odd and "Lao-tzu/tse" even worse. I still have trouble wth some words (/q/ v. /ch/, /x/ vs /sh/ vs. /hs/ and so on). And the fact that lots of people are at best incompletely -- or improperly -- transitioned doesn't help: "tai chi" "tai qi" "dai ji" and so on.

What trat of DDj are you using? I have had over the years more than 30 different one around and don't immediately recognize yours to back check. And I now just rely on the internet for all that stuff, but, alas, it is hard to lay out all the internet versions on a table and jump between them (on the other hand, the internet is nice about giving the original and helpful note for understanding it -- insofar as that is possible). Some "translators" have taken DDJ as a Rohrshach blob and gone pretty far off on their won (Paul Carus with his own ax to grind, say) other have been so literal that even what sense the original might have gets lost and all the two millennia of commentaries go for naught.

"integrated everything" is a long way from "abiding word" (pretty literal) through one line of commentaries and a lot of 19th-century European Idealism. But, if that is what you are translating, then 'wan ali' "totally one" is not bad -- nor would be 'ali wan', though that is more easily misunderstood.

'nasa' for "mysterious" works pretty well (if you're keyed into the "mysterious" tradition) and 'kon' for "spirit" is standard ("essence" is more likely 'insa', wth all the problems that raises). "yin and yang" are later (Ch. 3 or so?) but I was trying to orientate myself.

The opening of Ch 2 is a direct assault on Confucianism (and, to a lesser extent Mohism) and part of the whole "rectification of names" movement in Chinese thought at the time (c-350). The Cs were big on getting everything called by the right name and then holding that thing (they were, of course, mainly concerned with officials and family members) responsible to living up to their names. The Ds pointed out that, in order to make clear what the "right" word for something is and what that requires of the thing, you have to specify the opposite and thus make people aware of its existence. So, until you start stressing that the beautiful thing is beautiful, people just enjoyed it. But after, they had become aware of the ugly (needed to be referred to in the defining process) and then they started seeing it everywhere. The verses go on to deal with relative concepts and succession, all of which are related in the sense that all of them make absolute standards of the C sort logically impossible. In any case, the causation direction is clearly from setting the standard to raising awareness of the opposite and thus introducing the opposite into the world in a sense. The reciprocity comes in the later lines (but, of course, if we start by defining "ugly", we introduce "beautiful").

'ijo ni li pali e sama' is unclear only because of the many meanings of 'sama', which I don't know how todeal with except, as always, by context. The case of 'pali pona en pali pi pona ala' is harder, since the modification relation is so vague in tp as to allow literally any preposition, including 'e', to be meant and then just simple adjectiving. So this looks like just "good deeds and ungood deeds" and getting to "making good things and making ungood things" is pretty hard, maybe even with context. Going back to the underlying sentences seems the clearest thing to do: 'jan li pali e pona la jan li pali e pona ala la ni tu li nimi e sama' or so. Still puzzling perhaps but at least not grammatically.

'insa nasin ni' "this systematic interior", maybe one (or a selection) of centers of some system.
'insa pi nasin ni' "inside/center of this system (or these systems, of course)"

A brief history of 'pi' in tp (largely reconstructed and maybe even partially creative non-fiction). 'pi' started as a particle to mark possession,. "belonging to". As such, it could take any personal designation (so virtually any NP) after it, including one-word ones. So, the original Pije book contained things like 'ni li pi mi' "This is mine", with 'pi' even used predicatively (actually a kinda handy device that I sorta miss). It was glossed as English "of" (and Acadian "de") and quickly took on all the vagueness of that word, coming to mean "pertaining to somehow" or so. At that point, its meaning was so close to that of modification that the only special thing about it was that what followed it was a designation of an object, typically a proper name, a noun plus a proper adjective, usually. So, the official line (still in Pije and Lope, at least) is that it marks a noun plus adjective serving as a unit modifier in a modification chain. The cases of single-word identifiers, like 'mi', dropped out because there was no longer anything distinctive about them that was not covered by the meanings of the words themselves. But, at the same time, problems were arising with amphibolies in the modifier strings: 'tomo telo nasa' might be an odd bathroom or a bar, for example, depending on how the modifiers were grouped. So, the possessive notion, already extended to individuals in remote ways, was generalized to any noun + adjective. But there were also problems with things like 'jan pona mute', which did not obviously involve noun + adjective but suffered from similar problems. This was solved in the official channels by treating such cases as in fact cases of noun + adjective, rather than adjective +adverb. So, 'jan pi pona mute' was literally "person of much goodness" though still finally translated as "very good person". But as modification grew to meet felt needs (not a totally popular trend -- see Lope), this got to be harder and harder to maintain. Things like 'jan alasa waso' cried out for 'pi' but couldn't be twisted into the noun+adjective format at all. The final case was probably prepositional phrases as modifiers of nouns, the classic 'sitelen tawa mi', say. At some point, the rule for 'pi' got simplified to just "introduced a more-than-one-word unit in a modifier string". Since it was merely a grouping marker, having only one word after it made no sense, since the grouping was not affected. This now covers the way people -- even Sonja and Pije and Lope -- actually use 'pi', though it has a different explanation from their (factually inadequate) one.

I se your suggestions about 'pi' as trying to introduce a semantic component into its usage, a different component from the original one or any that have occurred in its history. I sympathize with you about the problems you are trying to solve, but don't think 'pi' is the right too. One solution is -- as usual -- to go back to the underlying sentences and not try to pack everything into the modifier strings. Another would be to introduce (and good luck with that) some other sorts of markers to make the same point. The problem is tha, even if 'ijo pi moku' does mean something other than 'ijo moku', it is not presently (or in the foreseeable future) clear what different thing it means: you say"something edible", I say "a table utensil" and so on.

Of course, there are other problem situations because every word in tp is so polyvalent. 'ijo ala' is probably bad for "nothing" but is useful for "unthing" (yes, I can imagine cases where I might want to say that). But generally, we have to look at these incontext rather than just as individual, free-floating expressions.

Good, a context. 'sewi li sama ala' doesn't mean that God doesn't exist, though just what it does mean is not clear: "God is not the same/like (as what?)" or "God is not himself". Both could lead to interesting discussions, but aren't very clear as starting points. 'sewi li sama ijo ala' "God is like no thing" or (less correctly) "God isn't like something" (probably different from the similar English 'sewi li sama ala ijo')

Colors. O pi C1C2 seems to be just a case of color wheel intersection or something like. Typically, both C1 and C2 occupy a fuzzy stretch of the color wheel (or spindle) either overlap somewhat with their neighbors or at least are closer to their neighbors as you move away from the center. So C1C2 means either "in the overlap area' of C1 and C2" or "in the area of C1 that is closer to C2". 'O pi C1 en C2' means that O has patches of C1 and other patches of C2 (and maybe, but not necessarily, patches where they overlap). pu tends to take 'en' as coming only from collapse, from 'O Ci en O C2' and so to more or less force, in this case, that O is plural and the variously colored Os are distinct. To be sure, it would be nice if the two quite distinct notions were differently expressed (without going back to more basic sentences). The problems with 'soweli loje en laso' is,in fact, handled by current 'pi', since, if both color terms apply to 'soweli', then 'pi' is needed, and, if 'pi' is not used, then 'laso' automatically matches 'soweli loje'. 'soweli pi loje en laso' can't be interpreted otherwise, by the "more than one word" rule.

'pi' is primarily a grammatical tool; its semantic load is minimal. All it does is say how the grouping goes; it is the grouping that carries the semantic load, modification (murky as that is). I do admit that talking about groups does allow for one-word groups. In this way, the Pije formulation is a little better, though it is off in other ways. The problem is just that, as things are now, 'ijo pi jan' and 'ijo ja' mean exactly the same thing and one is longer; so why chose it? The obvious answer is "Because it means something different", but as things stand now, it doesn't. So back to finding some other meaning for 'pi' which retains the present virtues but adds some others (which?) or finding some other device (short of being primitive) to make whatever the desired point is.
I am regularly frustrated , as you are, by the ambiguities that come from modifier strings and by the sheer clunkiness of avoiding them by going back several transformational level to be clear. But, on the other hand, I don't see how to get around this dilemma by some additions at the 'pi' level or so. I hope you come up with something that will sell.

Re: kulupu nimi tu pi nasin pona

Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2016 5:43 pm
by loteni
Oops, yeah I learnt pinyin only, but it seems the Wade-Giles uses are what I use to refer to things still. That is a bit strange.

I have a cheap pocket book version, "The Tao Te Ching, Lao Tzu; A new translation, commentary and introduction; by Ralph Alan Dale". It seems heavily new-age inspired to be fair.

I really appreciate you setting the historical context of that part of the text for me. I can't remember hearing of that before, and that certainly brings added clarity to the sense of that part of it.

"Integrated everything", well that is not the term he uses. In fact he uses the greater portion of the introduction explaining how he understands the phrase, and concludes "The Great Integrity" is most fitting. He uses terms reflective of that throughout his translation then. I suppose I relaxed a bit that meaning to come up with "integrated everything" which from his arguments about his "The Great Integrity" interpretation, seemed to be fitting.

I really like your suggestion of using "jan li pali e pona la jan li pali e pona ala la ni tu li nimi e sama", sure its a bit cryptic, but I think the nature of the text requires a bit of that :)

Ok, now the much more interesting stuff :)

Firstly, I want to thank you again for taking the time to interact, and also for presenting a brief history of pi usage. It is interesting as to how this word has developed and became to be what it is (or isn't) today.

If we can do everything we want to do already, without needing to add the exception rule for pi + one word + en. Then I see no reason to add it. My example about red squirrels and blueness was clearly incorrect, but even if it doesn't restrict the language why add in that exception rule, if it's not needed.

I noticed a post on Redit the other day something like this :

musi pi sike en palisa ; a game of sticks and balls. No doubt what the intended meaning is, is this: (a game of (sticks and balls)) and not a (a game of balls) and (sticks). Now clearly she/he knows not to say :
musi pi sike palisa ; a game of stick like balls. And he has ingrained the rule: "only one word after pi", and probably knows how there is the colour exception to make use of breaking that rule, so ;

musi pi sike en palisa ; should only be understood in the intended way.

Essentially using an exception rule for the rule of pi, one word, en, to express things. But then en becomes more something you need to go on by context, much like we use it in english.
Can she/he say ;
musi pi sike lili en palisa suli ; this would stretch it too far, breaking the exception rule used to express this in the first place. However why not relax en more? it would be useful ? After all we use "and" like that in english.

Well simply this;
musi pi sike pi palisa ; this already works.
musi pi sike lili pi palisa suli ; it's more expressive.
AND -- it saves "en" from increasing its ambiguity.
This way is also simpler, not needing additional exception rules for pi.

Anyway I suppose that is a slightly different although related topic to the use of pi in the following way;

So I wrote out some forms for "inside system" -- and you wrote this ;

1) 'insa nasin ni' "this systematic interior", maybe one (or a selection) of centers of some system.
2) 'insa pi nasin ni' "inside/center of this system (or these systems, of course)"

(I added the 1 and 2). I found this be a good example of what I am trying to explain about how pi is often used. Also, don't misunderstand me, I am not implying anything about correctness or style or anything like that. Maybe, I am misrepresenting you even. This just serves me well to explain something, I'm having difficulty in explaining. Maybe, this will be a bad explanation : -

First, lets be very basic, and not worry about all the other things you can do with words - that gets complicated. Lets just take this at face value, and simply.
Second, lets use the official book only for our considerations.

In 1 and 2; we have the same possible interpretation, hence "center of system" [I1]
In 1, another possible interpretation is given, hence "systematic interior" [I2]

in 1. it is considered that [I2] is more probable than [I1].

According to pu; insa nasin -- both nouns; read as "center of system"
So in 1. [I1] should be more a probable interpretation than [I2]

Eitherway, the observation is this ;
pi -- is not needed, but it reduces the most likely semantic scope of the phrase.

ijo pi moku, ijo moku ; even if these can mean the same things;
According to pu, pi starts a noun group, so moku is more likely a noun, so again; reduces the most likely semantic scope of the phrase. Maybe it's best to assume it, if anything, merely changes the order of things we try.

jan alasa waso -- hmm this one is tricky, but without a pi, is probably the best way to increase the likelihood of the interpretation you want. Even if it seems less than ideal. I suppose these kind of noun+verb+noun phrases are "just" going to be tricky to try to clarify.

mmm, I am not sure we are on the same page about how words work in toki pona. From reading the book i get this impression ;
lawa -- this is first, so it is most likely a noun, so it likely means head or mind.
jan lawa -- now it is second, it could still be a noun, for something like "man of mind", a mindful man. Or it might be a verb for something like "man that leads" or is useful in some way for that action. So lets say, normally ;
1. jan lawa -- normally means leader.
2. jan pi lawa -- is this just a bad way to say leader, or as the book implies (I think), a good way to distinguish, that I mean "a man of mind".


My take is that a reading of the book would lead one to think that 2. jan pi lawa, is distinguishing man of mind, from leader. And the only reason this is frowned upon is the unnecessary exception rule added to language outside of the book, which it might clash with. Or the older pre-pu usage as the language was being developed.
If we ignore the clash with the suggested new rule for colours. We are all clear, since it is meaningless, therefore it would only be used to try to reduce semantic scope. And the rule for colours is unnecessary anyway.

Something totally meaningless is of utmost importance in normal conversation. Since we can then use these things, and I think we tend to, for putting a marker at a certain point, to say something like; "this is not the common way this is used". Perfect for toki pona, since it can be very ambiguous.

Natural friendly communication uses irrelevancies all the time to convey more information, more compactly.

Re: kulupu nimi tu pi nasin pona

Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2016 6:07 pm
by janKipo
'musi pi sike lili en palisa suli' is ambiguous, because 'pi' only guarantees two words, not more. So 'palisa suli' can parallel 'musi pi sike lili' or 'sike lili' (and, indeed, 'palisa' alone can parallel 'sike lili' and 'suli' modify either 'musi pi sike lili en palisa' or just 'sike lili en palisa'). This is where commas come into play nowadays. The 'en' is assumed to be tight-binding, so 'palisa suli' parallels 'sike lili'. If not (if it parallels the whole 'musi ... lili') then a comma is placed before the 'en'. Similarly, if 'suli' modifies not 'palisa' but all that goes before (admittedly two possible cases) then a comma is placed before 'suli'. I don't know how to separate the two cases here.
Dinner time. I'll get back to your other point later -- and I'll look Dale's DDJ in the internet heap. [latwer. Got it: http://taointegrity.blogspot.com/]
[Still later: I think part of your problem (and mine) is from the threefold nature of parts of speech in tp. Every word has a home type" 'moku' is a transitive verb. 'loje' is an adjective, 'telo' is a noun. But then any of them can be used ins slots typical of any one of them: 'moku' as head of the subject or a DO or a prepositional object, so like a noun, or as a modifier in 'soweli moku'. And similarly for the others. But, even in those slots, all the possibilities are still present: 'moku' in a noun slot can still be verbal "eating" (the activity) or nominal "food" or adjectival "edible thing/edibility" and so on through all the permutations. But tp in no wise distinguishes these last runs through the POS, "context will decide" (like Hell!). I have no solution for this, but I have a suggestion for making it easier to talk about. Suppose that in our discussions we just add a /p/ at the end of words when they ae being used nominally, whatever their home or positional POS, and similarly for verbs and /t/ and adjectives and /k/. This shortens and clarifies the discussion a lot: 'mi mokut' for "I am eating" (verb in a verb slot verbing), 'mi mokup' "I am food" (verb in a verb slot nouning) and 'mi mokuk' for "I am edible" etc. (verb in a verb slot adjectivizing). You get the clarity of the parenthetical remarks without actually having to say them. Probably cut discussion time by at least half. Just something I am playing with now.]

Re: kulupu nimi tu pi nasin pona

Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2016 6:22 pm
by loteni
Oh wow, and there was me thinking my slippery slope argument was going to be thought silly, since "strict rules", but that has already happened and now you use en in strange ways.

Well I've barely scratched the surface of the language so far. I am very interested in how other dialects are doing things. However I think I will continue to stick to the official dialect, since it seems simpler, less ambiguous and more expressive to me.

We should keep these things in mind, that one person might want to know how to do something WRT official dialect from pu, or maybe some other dialect.
Or different people will give conflicting advice to others, so maybe we should specify too, which dialect we are presenting.

Re: kulupu nimi tu pi nasin pona

Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2016 7:18 pm
by janKipo
I am not sure that there is that much in the way of real dialect difference (see the appropriate FAQ). People seem to understand one another and use words as needed without noticing any differences. Lope, of course, objects to some usages, but no one pays much attention. And occasionally someone has to ask a question, but those seem to be as much about the "official" dialect (remember, there is no organization or tsar to give the official stamp, only a sort of consensus) as some of the others (Pije, community, even Lope and 76 Illustrated Lessons).

Re: kulupu nimi tu pi nasin pona

Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2016 8:13 pm
by loteni
Yeah the dialects are fairly close so as to still be understandable by users of any in almost all cases. However the differences do crop up, people use the terms ; "Kipo dialect" to refer to yours. "Pije dialect" to refer to his, and "Pu dialect or Official dialect" to refer to that which is presented in the official book. etc...

Maybe i'll come to switch dialects, maybe I won't. I just want to know what it is am doing and learning, and where that information is to be found. Of course I am interested in the different dialects, and would hope others would clarify the differences for easy learning for me and others. Objectivity and clarity I think is best.

So whilst you maybe tempted to play down the differences and equate them as more similar so as to propagate your dialect as the "in use" or "actual official" one. I think objectivity and clarity is better for us all.

People tend to use the language a bit differently depending on what learning resources they primarily used. You are an extremely prolific writer, so far you are the only person that has interacted with me in this forum and find you helping others all over the internet as well. Your blog is also one of the most informative resources I have found online. I also like your writing style, it particularly appeals to the way I think about things.

Still, I concentrated on the official book for learning, and also find people continually popping up that use the language in the way the book prescribes also. The book is very interesting and seems to require much study. Since it is from the creator, at least I want to go all in for that first. Once I have learnt that dialect, I will be better able to know if I am kind of person that would prefer another. It is as embarrassing as it is amazing how little of the official language I have come to know so far, since the book seems so small, yet the layers of information packed inside it are so great.

I am still at that stage of wanting to know what the book teaches, what is the case in the official language of toki pona. Since that is what I have chosen to first get to grips with.