However, I still don't like "ona"....
Yeah, but if it isn't bringing much to the table--imho--why not drop it all together? I have to choose to use ona/ni/wan/ijo/jan, guidance is mostly left up to calquing one's mother tongue. I'm using ni/ona from time to time, but for no particular reason other than in my own language I might do so at that point (save for definiteness, ni is definitely more definite-- but if I wanted an indefinite ni, I wouldn't choose ona). It would have been more true to a pigdin design to drop the subject or object rather than use ona/ni/wan/ijo/jan. Sadly, tp has obligatory subjects and seemingly obligatory objects for vi words. I don't think at all the solution would be to add more co-ordination strategies like lojban.jan Ote wrote:Context rules, as usual. Every language I know has pronouns, to avoid repetition of noun. It seems to be an important part of language and I wouldn't hesitate to use it.janMato wrote:ona is such a lousy word-- it co-ordinates with *everything*, I would rather repeat.
My point isn't that "this/the/an/it" are useless in Polish or English or Hungarian. My point is that when you take away everything else, too, such as verb inflections indicating who did it, take away contrastive pronouns (he vs it vs they), take away things that contrast based on definativeness, leaving only "ona" and "ni" which are being used (rare but it exists I'll admit) in in-person discourse, then what good is it to have one or two? Better to have zero or not use them (again unless one is conveying definiteness).You forgot Po... uhm, well... You use an English equivalent of "ni" almost every time you say more than one sentence.janMato wrote:Odds are low that I will ever have the opportunity to point at something and say "ni!"
Then this is an non-deixis usage. This is some sort of pronoun that can stand in for an entire sentence, probably as a result of being from a language that cared about genders. What gender is "he doesn't fight"? It's either neuter or better yet, invent a construction that doesn't require saying "he". My mother tongue being English, I grasp gender (of the the inanimate) poorly. So "He doesn't fight. It is good." sounds just fine. In French, I suppose they couldn't easily use "it" because it would be masculine or feminine and would have to resort to a "this" construction. I think--I'm not really good at French.While we often use "ni" this way:
ona li utala ala. ni li pona.
He doesn't fight. That is good.
(NB: here we are not able to use finger while speaking, and point at "something", because there is no real object to point at! The fact he doesn't fight is good)
Like I said before, Hungarian hasn't been eviscerated of it's grammatical machinery and vocabulary. It has tons of pronouns that co-ordinate with anaphora on 3+ diminsions. Moreover, it the verb has gobs of personal suffixes to step in to co-ordinate things again. Toki pona has one, (three if we count ni and wan). ona co-ordinates with everything. That which refers to everything, refers to nothing. A language doesn't need to have anaphora that co-ordinates on 2 or 20 diminisions, but if it co-ordinates not at all, when why bother using that word?Still "ona" doesn't indicate whether the replaced noun is an animated one or not? No problem. Hungarian doesn't have grammatical gender or a grammatical distinction between animate and inanimate.
[/quote]You disappeared me and jan lili mi. We certainly have used "ni" many times. ...janMato wrote:Pointing in toki pona is hypothetical-- it's never happened (that two toki pona speakers were in the same room)
Nothing personal, just trying to make the point that toki pona is for the most part, an online, not an in person phenomenon. This contrasts heavily with pidgin and creoles which are mostly in person only phenomenon.
There exists a language in the world that as a grammatical requirement requires you to inflect the verb to indicate if the action is up-river or down-river. If an internet language incorporated it, the distinction would be meaningless, as it is a rule that works best in person, standing by a river. Similarly, a deixic pronoun that implies pointing with a finger is going on makes no sense on the internet. If we see a deixic pronoun being used on the internet, it probably doesn't mean "The one I'm pointing at"
Here ona isn't really referring to anything because it isn't more descriptive than"ike a! ona li moku e ona!". No ambiguity within the context.
* ike a! li moku!
The ona just serves as a place holder. ijo has been time to time suggested to be that place holder as well
ike a! ona li moku e ona! (eating is going on!)
ika a! ijo li moku e ijo! (eating is going on!)