sin pi toki nanpa tan jan Sonja

Tinkerers Anonymous: Some people can't help making changes to "fix" Toki Pona. This is a playground for their ideas.
Tokiponidistoj: Iuj homoj nepre volas fari ŝanĝojn por "ripari" Tokiponon. Jen ludejo por iliaj ideoj.
janKipo
Posts: 3037
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:20 pm

Re: sin pi toki nanpa tan jan Sonja

Postby janKipo » Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:32 am

To sum up (I think):
We will continue to call them 'nanpa suli' regardless of suspicions about the literal correctness of the expression (but most idioms -- indeed compound expressions -- are not literally correct, else they would be a lot longer).

For the main remaining use of numerals, it would be nice to have a set of proper adjectives for reading them (the letters, too). I would say, just read them in your own language except that we are not any longer mutually intelligible, so make them up out of some simple stock or a priori.

The basic ideas of the tp numbers are unity (wholeness, integrity), divisibility (separateness), and frisibility (shattered, crumbled, spread about). If 'nanpa wan' can refer to the number one, and 'nanpa tu' to two, then 'nanpa mute' can refer to any number for than two. But all of these expressions, while legitimate, are ill-advised since they give rise to more likely readings in all but very special contexts. In any case, 'nanpa x' is probably not a good way to quantify a noun phrase, since it would clearly have an ordinal meaning before it had a cardinal one (in non-specialized contexts). (Also, it seems to require 'pi' for the cardinal use, while ordinary cardinals are automatically right grouping. Ah, but 'nanpa x' as an ordinal is also automatically right grouping, so there is a disambiguator.)

All of this last is largely irrelevant since tp is designed to wean away from all those big numbers to things we can really deal with and regular ways top deal with them.

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

Re: sin pi toki nanpa tan jan Sonja

Postby jan-ante » Tue Oct 13, 2009 2:36 pm

jak Ote wrote:Could you please quote the excerpt? I can't see anything like this stated there. I believe "nanpa tu" can mean an ordinal or cardinal number, depending on a sentence.

nanpa
    n number
    oth -th (ordinal numbers)
that is, if nanpa stands in a position of noun (e.g. subject, object) it means number:
nanpa wan li pona tawa tokipona - number 1 is good for toki pona, like this
nanpa wan = number(число)-of-singular (as many as singular) -> transl.: "1" (not "1st")

----
I do not understand why it can't mean "big number", "number [of] many"?

note, then nanpa mute means many numbers, not a "big number_"

but if nanpa is not in a position of noun, it is an ordinal

rdmiller3
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 12:41 pm
Location: Muskego, Wisconsin US
Contact:

Re: sin pi toki nanpa tan jan Sonja

Postby rdmiller3 » Tue Oct 13, 2009 3:36 pm

jan-ante wrote:but if nanpa is not in a position of noun, it is an ordinal

I don't think that's quite accurate.

mi kama sona e sona nanpa. (I'm learning mathematics. Shouldn't take long in Toki Pona.) Here "nanpa" is an adjective but not an ordinal.

mi nanpa e meli pi pona lukin. (I'm counting beautiful women, perhaps by sticking number-labels on handy projections and trying not to count each woman twice. There aren't many in my engineering department so I can do it in Toki Pona.) Here "nanpa" is the verb, not a noun and not an ordinal.

mi jo ala e meli mi pi nanpa wan. (I don't have my first wife.) In the ordinal phrase (starting with "pi") the word "nanpa" is still a noun.

As you can see, mathematics is not good for a person's marriage and in an ordinal the word "nanpa" is in the position of a noun.

janKipo
Posts: 3037
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:20 pm

Re: sin pi toki nanpa tan jan Sonja

Postby janKipo » Tue Oct 13, 2009 5:17 pm

It always a bad idea to take words like '"noun" too seriously when talking about tp. It's better to talk about roles or functions or doings. So a word nouns or performs a nominal function at the beginning of a sentence (ignoring 'taso' and 'la' with all before it and 'o' and probably some other things) and after 'e' and after prepositions (even when they are verbing in some cases) and often after 'pi'. A word verbs or serves a predicate function (in this case, this is clearly better) when it comes directly after 'li'. A word modifies (is a modifier, serves and adjectival/adverbial function) when it is to the right of a developing nouning (i.e. a nouning word with no or some modifiers to its right). There are some odd cases, of which 'nanpa' is the clearest (after the number words themselves) where 'pi' is not needed to make a right grouping, so that you could call 'nanpa' in 'ijo nanpa wan' a noun (after an implicit 'pi') or a modifier (after a noun). Take your pick--except it may make a difference: 'ijo nanpa wan' also means, inter alia, "one numerical thingie" and "a whole (intact) numerical thingie" in both of which cases 'nanpa' is clearly a modifier

rdmiller3
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 12:41 pm
Location: Muskego, Wisconsin US
Contact:

Re: sin pi toki nanpa tan jan Sonja

Postby rdmiller3 » Tue Oct 13, 2009 5:36 pm

jan Kipo,

In your last post you claim that "nanpa" doesn't need "pi" to create a grouping, and then you go on and interpret the example as though it were not a group. It looks as though you're contradicting yourself. What exactly are you trying to say?

Please show a few straightforward examples and say exactly what you're trying to point out with each one.

Personally, I don't agree that "nanpa" introduces a group of words. I don't buy into the "implicit pi" which you mention.

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

Re: sin pi toki nanpa tan jan Sonja

Postby jan Ote » Wed Oct 14, 2009 1:18 am

jan-ante wrote:
jak Ote wrote:Could you please quote the excerpt? I can't see anything like this stated there. I believe "nanpa tu" can mean an ordinal or cardinal number, depending on a sentence.

nanpa
    n number
    oth -th (ordinal numbers)
that is, if nanpa stands in a position of noun (e.g. subject, object) it means number:

But you wrote:
jan-ante wrote:but many thanks to Google for its cash
it has a meaning "number", but when it stands before wan/tu it is an ordinal number.
I still can't see anything supporting this claim in the excerpt you've quoted.

jan-ante wrote:
I do not understand why it can't mean "big number", "number [of] many"?

note, then nanpa mute means many numbers, not a "big number_"
Then you shouldn't oppose using the same pattern and stating that:
note, then nanpa tu means two numbers, not a "number two" :)

toki pi jan Kipo li pona.

janKipo
Posts: 3037
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:20 pm

Re: sin pi toki nanpa tan jan Sonja

Postby janKipo » Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:44 am

rdmiller3 wrote:jan Kipo,

In your last post you claim that "nanpa" doesn't need "pi" to create a grouping, and then you go on and interpret the example as though it were not a group. It looks as though you're contradicting yourself. What exactly are you trying to say?

Please show a few straightforward examples and say exactly what you're trying to point out with each one.

Personally, I don't agree that "nanpa" introduces a group of words. I don't buy into the "implicit pi" which you mention.


Well, the examples I have seen of 'nanpa' in modifier position followed by quantifiers, e.g., 'ijo nanpa wan' "first thing" clearly are meant to group
(ijo (nanpa wan)). But the point is that tp is ambiguous here, since there is nothing to prevent the grouping ((ijo nanpa)wan). I think that a real 'pi' would be better, but then, I am a fussbudget and usage seems to favor the implicit 'pi' (I haven't actually made a count of the two usages, so I may be wrong on this -- but I don't remember a case with 'pi').

On the various points about 'nanpa,' it is important to look carefully at the role a word is playing in a sentence or phrase. As a head noun (leftmost in a string in a nouning position), 'nanpa' clearly means "number" (but, of course what *that* means is another matter). As a modifier by itself (i.e., not followed by quantifiers), it mean "numeric" (etc.). As a modifier followed by numbers it usually means the the following number(s) together are to be taken as ordinals (and it itself sorta drops out semantically). The number words following of course form a right group whose internal grouping is irrelevant. In predicate position (directly after 'li') with a direct object (after 'e') following, it means 'enumerate, take a tally of'.

On that other question, what does "number' mean, we have dealt only with the more abstract notion. I suspect (though I can't find a confirming citation), that the "number" meaning of 'nanpa' includes the tally of a population of things: cows, spears. people, whatever. In this sense it impinges on the nouning use of 'mute' to mean "quantity," the difference being that 'mute' can be used for nondiscrete quantities, like volume and mass, whereas 'nanpa' only works for discrete, countable, things. Using this, we get that 'nanpa mute' can indeed mean "number of quantity" but that quantity is not necessarily a big one, requiring a large number (I'm actually not sure what the meaning of this expression is beyond the meaning of 'nanpa' by itself). Of ccourse, 'mute' also means "multitude," I suppose, but even that -- in tp terms-- is not necessarily big (three would count, after all).

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

Re: sin pi toki nanpa tan jan Sonja

Postby jan-ante » Wed Oct 14, 2009 3:37 pm

rdmiller3 wrote:
mi kama sona e sona nanpa. (I'm learning mathematics. Shouldn't take long in Toki Pona.) Here "nanpa" is an adjective but not an ordinal.

i agree. that is a good example

mi nanpa e meli pi pona lukin. (I'm counting beautiful women, perhaps by sticking number-labels on handy projections and trying not to count each woman twice. There aren't many in my engineering department so I can do it in Toki Pona.) Here "nanpa" is the verb, not a noun and not an ordinal.

logically it is clear. but officially it has no meaning of trasitive verb, so officially it looks like something illegal. but i would advocate such a usage of nanpa

in fact it the proposed usage of nanpa as ordinal (pi nanpa X) could be ambigious: ona li pilin e ike pi nanpa 666 - he believes in evil of number 666 (not 666th evil). indeed, it is not clear how the ordinal should be placed in TP. if one can use it in construction (pi nanpa X) only, Sonja should remove the mentioning of ordinal from the dictionary. after your stimulative discussion i would suggest it as a modifier of (quasi)numerals wan and tu: jan lili (pi) tu nanpa - second child, as the ordinal should modify the numeral, not noun. but i am not sure it is necessary

janKipo
Posts: 3037
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:20 pm

Re: sin pi toki nanpa tan jan Sonja

Postby janKipo » Wed Oct 14, 2009 3:46 pm

A warning. There is more about the words in tp than you will find on the official site or even on the quasi-official ones. In fact, the use of 'nanpa' as a transitive verb is in at least one version of the official list, as is the ordinal usage. The use of both is in the corpus, though not with a lot of appearances (neither is something people have had a lot of occasions to say, I suppose).

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

Re: sin pi toki nanpa tan jan Sonja

Postby jan-ante » Wed Oct 14, 2009 3:57 pm

jak Ote wrote:But you wrote:
jan-ante wrote:but many thanks to Google for its cash
it has a meaning "number", but when it stands before wan/tu it is an ordinal number.
I still can't see anything supporting this claim in the excerpt you've quoted.

i did not atrribute the coloured claim to the dictionary. i provided this link (i) to confirm that it can be a noun and (ii) because you regreted that wiki replaced the old texts from tokipona.org. the usage of ordinal was taken from the textbook.

Then you shouldn't oppose using the same pattern and stating that:
note, then nanpa tu means two numbers, not a "number two"

toki pona is ambiguous at this pont. if you trace the discussion back, you will find that i objected against usaje of "ijo nanpa 64" as 64 objects, because this makes toki pona even more ambiguous. but (to me) in "nanpa mute" it is not ambiguous many/several/numerous numbers


Return to “jan nasa li wile ante e toki pona”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest