nimi oko en nimi uta

Archives from the old Yahoo! group
Arĥivoj de la malnova Yahoo!-grupo
I have many names

nimi oko en nimi uta

Post by I have many names »

Hi! This is my first post, but i've been here awhile. I was wondering. If thewords for body parts are compound nouns (eg ear nena kute), then why do "eye"and "mouth" have their own words?
jan_sewe

Re: nimi oko en nimi uta

Post by jan_sewe »

--- In tokipona@yahoogroups.com, "I have many names" <acarroll_667@...> wrote:>> Hi! This is my first post, but i've been here awhile. I was wondering. If thewords for body parts are compound nouns (eg ear nena kute), then why do "eye"and "mouth" have their own words?>I support your suggestion of adding a new word for each body part.
John E Clifford

Re: Re: nimi oko en nimi uta

Post by John E Clifford »

I reflexively disapprove of new words for which no particular need has beendemonstrated (or even suggested in this case). I suspect (on almost no evidenceat all) that "eye" and "mouth" are covered because they seem more useful inconveying further notions (though, perhaps many of these could have beenhandled by "hole" and "see" and "eat" and "light," and so on -- but theyweren't). What the vocabulary of a language is is pretty haphazard and in alanguage without a clearly specified procedure for expanding vocabulary (except"Sonja announces that...") additions need careful consideration indeed (keepingin mind that tp's best feature is its very small size). Once the gates areopened too cavalierly, the flood would soon drown the language ("left," "right,"bigger numbers, and a raft of other suggestions come back into play -- alongwith some suggestions to drop stuff as well). I think the present policy ofnot adding things is generally best -- and it makes for more interesting mental exercise in using the language.________________________________From: jan_sewe <serge.g@laposte.net>To: tokipona@yahoogroups.comSent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 9:34:15 AMSubject: [tokipona] Re: nimi oko en nimi uta--- In tokipona@yahoogroup s.com, "I have many names" <acarroll_667@ ...> wrote:>> Hi! This is my first post, but i've been here awhile. I was wondering. If thewords for body parts are compound nouns (eg ear nena kute), then why do "eye"and "mouth" have their own words?>I support your suggestion of adding a new word for each body part.[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
jan_sewe

Re: nimi oko en nimi uta

Post by jan_sewe »

Mental exercise? Yes, this is actually what attracted me first. But I reallydon't know if I'm gonna keep exercising my brain until TP has only the word ponaleft.--- In tokipona@yahoogroups.com, John E Clifford <kali9putra@...> wrote:>> I reflexively disapprove of new words for which no particular need has beendemonstrated (or even suggested in this case). I suspect (on almost no evidenceat all) that "eye" and "mouth" are covered because they seem more useful inconveying further notions (though, perhaps many of these could have beenhandled by "hole" and "see" and "eat" and "light," and so on -- but theyweren't). What the vocabulary of a language is is pretty haphazard and in alanguage without a clearly specified procedure for expanding vocabulary (except"Sonja announces that...") additions need careful consideration indeed (keepingin mind that tp's best feature is its very small size). Once the gates areopened too cavalierly, the flood would soon drown the language ("left," "right,"bigger numbers, and a raft of other suggestions come back into play -- alongwith some suggestions to drop stuff as well). I think the present policy ofnot adding things is generally best --> and it makes for more interesting mental exercise in using the language.
John E Clifford

Re: Re: nimi oko en nimi uta

Post by John E Clifford »

Yeah, vocabulary simplification can be carried too far; NSM (natural semanticmetalanguage), the most scientific system, gets by (it claims) with about 70words, philosophical languages (the least scientific) use in the the 20-60 range(cf the alphabet), but both of those have mechanisms for extending thevocabulary. Of course the philosophical ones tend to run into Zipf's wallfairly early on -- the length of words is no longer proportional to the inverseof the frequen. This is a problem for fixed vocabulary languages as well. Theconclusion to draw is that tp is not a general purpose language, not one whichcan talk about anything in the world at any level of detail, but has some other, phikosophical or therapeutic, goal.________________________________From: jan_sewe <serge.g@laposte.net>To: tokipona@yahoogroups.comSent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 1:43:50 PMSubject: [tokipona] Re: nimi oko en nimi utaMental exercise? Yes, this is actually what attracted me first. But I reallydon't know if I'm gonna keep exercising my brain until TP has only the word ponaleft.--- In tokipona@yahoogroup s.com, John E Clifford <kali9putra@ ...> wrote:>> I reflexively disapprove of new words for which no particular need has beendemonstrated (or even suggested in this case). I suspect (on almost no evidenceat all) that "eye" and "mouth" are covered because they seem more useful inconveying further notions (though, perhaps many of these could have beenhandled by "hole" and "see" and "eat" and "light," and so on -- but theyweren't). What the vocabulary of a language is is pretty haphazard and in alanguage without a clearly specified procedure for expanding vocabulary (except"Sonja announces that...") additions need careful consideration indeed (keepingin mind that tp's best feature is its very small size). Once the gates areopened too cavalierly, the flood would soon drown the language ("left," "right,"bigger numbers, and a raft of other suggestions come back into play -- alongwith some suggestions to drop stuff as well). I think the present policy ofnot adding things is generally best --> and it makes for more interesting mental exercise in using the language.[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
jan_sewe

Re: nimi oko en nimi uta

Post by jan_sewe »

--- In tokipona@yahoogroups.com, John E Clifford <kali9putra@...> wrote:>> Yeah, vocabulary simplification can be carried too far; NSM (natural semanticmetalanguage), the most scientific system, gets by (it claims) with about 70words, philosophical languages (the least scientific) use in the the 20-60 range(cf the alphabet), but both of those have mechanisms for extending thevocabulary. Of course the philosophical ones tend to run into Zipf's wallfairly early on -- the length of words is no longer proportional to the inverseof the frequen. This is a problem for fixed vocabulary languages as well. Theconclusion to draw is that tp is not a general purpose language, not one whichcan talk about anything in the world at any level of detail, but has some other, phikosophical or therapeutic, goal.>OK for the non-general purposeness of Toki Pona. But even with just thetherapeutic goal in mind, you'd still want to say *some* things in it. Now ifpeople still want to remove more words from Toki Pona, then this language isgoing to end up without anymore expressive power at all - except perhaps forsome religious purposes I'm unaware of.I'd be worried about replacing oko and uta by lupa lukin and lupa moku. oko anduta can be used in other contexts where these two replacements would beabsolutely irrelevant. Try to find examples as an exercise! For the same kind ofreason, I don't believe that pata and jan sama were so much equivalent - eventhough the former doesn't exist anymore. And very few of us do reject thenumeric meaning of luka.
John E Clifford

Re: Re: nimi oko en nimi uta

Post by John E Clifford »

Well, there isn't a lot of drive to remove more words, though occasionally oneor other may be seen as redundant (ilo and kepeken, for example). With theremaining, one can say quite a bit (witness all the texts around on the archivesand beyond) but not everything -- and not always easily. That is in keeping witha goal (vaguely Daoist) for the language: simplicity. As for changing oko anduta, I agree. As noted, they have metaphorical uses that would be lost -- orawkwardly replace -- in a language without the basic words. The same cannot besaid for many body parts (although maybe for some more).________________________________From: jan_sewe <serge.g@laposte.net>To: tokipona@yahoogroups.comSent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 5:47:53 PMSubject: [tokipona] Re: nimi oko en nimi uta--- In tokipona@yahoogroup s.com, John E Clifford <kali9putra@ ...> wrote:>> Yeah, vocabulary simplification can be carried too far; NSM (natural semanticmetalanguage) , the most scientific system, gets by (it claims) with about 70words, philosophical languages (the least scientific) use in the the 20-60 range(cf the alphabet), but both of those have mechanisms for extending thevocabulary. Of course the philosophical ones tend to run into Zipf's wallfairly early on -- the length of words is no longer proportional to the inverseof the frequen. This is a problem for fixed vocabulary languages as well. Theconclusion to draw is that tp is not a general purpose language, not one whichcan talk about anything in the world at any level of detail, but has some other, phikosophical or therapeutic, goal.>OK for the non-general purposeness of Toki Pona. But even with just thetherapeutic goal in mind, you'd still want to say *some* things in it. Now ifpeople still want to remove more words from Toki Pona, then this language isgoing to end up without anymore expressive power at all - except perhaps forsome religious purposes I'm unaware of.I'd be worried about replacing oko and uta by lupa lukin and lupa moku. oko anduta can be used in other contexts where these two replacements would beabsolutely irrelevant. Try to find examples as an exercise! For the same kind ofreason, I don't believe that pata and jan sama were so much equivalent - eventhough the former doesn't exist anymore. And very few of us do reject thenumeric meaning of luka.[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
jan_sewe

Re: nimi oko en nimi uta

Post by jan_sewe »

pona a! ken la nimi oko en nimi uta li awen lon toki pona!mi ken toki tawa sina kepeken nimi taso. nimi li ilo pona!sina wile ala wile weka e nimi ilo anu nimi kepeken tan toki pona? ni li wilenasa tawa mi.tenpo sike pini la mi open e kama sona pi toki pona. ona li pilin sama ilo musipona tawa mi.tenpo ni la mi ken lukin e ni: jan pi mute lili li wile kin e ni: toki pona likama nasin sewi.mi ken ala kama jo pona e ni.sina sona ala sona e jan Kanse Louis de Beaufront? ona li jan pali pi toki Ito.ona li pilin e ni: toki en nasin sewi li ijo tu. mi pilin sama ona.--- In tokipona@yahoogroups.com, John E Clifford <kali9putra@...> wrote:>> Well, there isn't a lot of drive to remove more words, though occasionally oneor other may be seen as redundant (ilo and kepeken, for example). With theremaining, one can say quite a bit (witness all the texts around on the archivesand beyond) but not everything -- and not always easily. That is in keeping witha goal (vaguely Daoist) for the language: simplicity. As for changing oko anduta, I agree. As noted, they have metaphorical uses that would be lost -- orawkwardly replace -- in a language without the basic words. The same cannot besaid for many body parts (although maybe for some more).
John E Clifford

Re: Re: nimi oko en nimi uta

Post by John E Clifford »

tennpo la mi mile weka. taso tenpo ante la mi wile ala. tenpo la mi jan sona.tenpo ante la mi jan kepeken. kulupu nimi 'ni li wile nasa tawa mi' li sona eseme. mi pilin e kulupu Inli "This seems crazy to me". taso mi ken ala sona eni: tan nasin seme la ona li sona e ni.. mi pilin e ni: jan ala li wile e ni:toki pona li kama nasin sewi. taso jan li wile e ni: toki pona li ilo tawapilin pi nasin sewi pona. lon la toki li nasin sewi ala. taso toki li ken ilotawa kama pilin. jan Luwi te Pokan kin li toki e ni.________________________________From: jan_sewe <serge.g@laposte.net>To: tokipona@yahoogroups.comSent: Friday, April 10, 2009 9:43:09 AMSubject: [tokipona] Re: nimi oko en nimi utapona a! ken la nimi oko en nimi uta li awen lon toki pona!mi ken toki tawa sina kepeken nimi taso. nimi li ilo pona!sina wile ala wile weka e nimi ilo anu nimi kepeken tan toki pona? ni li wilenasa tawa mi.tenpo sike pini la mi open e kama sona pi toki pona. ona li pilin sama ilo musipona tawa mi.tenpo ni la mi ken lukin e ni: jan pi mute lili li wile kin e ni: toki pona likama nasin sewi.mi ken ala kama jo pona e ni.sina sona ala sona e jan Kanse Louis de Beaufront? ona li jan pali pi toki Ito.ona li pilin e ni: toki en nasin sewi li ijo tu. mi pilin sama ona.--- In tokipona@yahoogroup s.com, John E Clifford <kali9putra@ ...> wrote:>> Well, there isn't a lot of drive to remove more words, though occasionally oneor other may be seen as redundant (ilo and kepeken, for example). With theremaining, one can say quite a bit (witness all the texts around on the archivesand beyond) but not everything -- and not always easily. That is in keeping witha goal (vaguely Daoist) for the language: simplicity. As for changing oko anduta, I agree. As noted, they have metaphorical uses that would be lost -- orawkwardly replace -- in a language without the basic words. The same cannot besaid for many body parts (although maybe for some more).[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
jan_sewe

Re: nimi oko en nimi uta

Post by jan_sewe »

jan John o,kulupu nimi ni li wile taso toki e ni: "mi pilin e ni: wile ni li nasa". mi wilekepeken e nimi 'wile' sama nimi Inli 'Desire (noun)'. taso kulupu nimi mi lipakala lili...jan pi sona toki li pona tawa mi. sin la mi lukin e ni lon lipu wan: sina jansona pi toki Lolan *en* toki Losupan. ni li musi! jan sama sina li mute ala...:-)mi pilin sama sina: mi mute li kepeken e toki pona la mi mute li wile sin ala eweka nimi! kin la mi pilin pona tan toki sina ni: toki pona li nasin sewi ala.mi tawa.jan Sewe--- In tokipona@yahoogroups.com, John E Clifford <kali9putra@...> wrote:>> tennpo la mi mile weka. taso tenpo ante la mi wile ala. tenpo la mi jan sona.tenpo ante la mi jan kepeken. kulupu nimi 'ni li wile nasa tawa mi' li sona eseme. mi pilin e kulupu Inli "This seems crazy to me". taso mi ken ala sona eni: tan nasin seme la ona li sona e ni.. mi pilin e ni: jan ala li wile e ni:toki pona li kama nasin sewi. taso jan li wile e ni: toki pona li ilo tawapilin pi nasin sewi pona. lon la toki li nasin sewi ala. taso toki li ken ilotawa kama pilin. jan Luwi te Pokan kin li toki e ni.>>>>> ________________________________> From: jan_sewe <serge.g@...>> To: tokipona@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 9:43:09 AM> Subject: [tokipona] Re: nimi oko en nimi uta>>>>>> pona a! ken la nimi oko en nimi uta li awen lon toki pona!>> mi ken toki tawa sina kepeken nimi taso. nimi li ilo pona!> sina wile ala wile weka e nimi ilo anu nimi kepeken tan toki pona? ni li wilenasa tawa mi.>> tenpo sike pini la mi open e kama sona pi toki pona. ona li pilin sama ilomusi pona tawa mi.> tenpo ni la mi ken lukin e ni: jan pi mute lili li wile kin e ni: toki pona likama nasin sewi.> mi ken ala kama jo pona e ni.>> sina sona ala sona e jan Kanse Louis de Beaufront? ona li jan pali pi tokiIto.> ona li pilin e ni: toki en nasin sewi li ijo tu. mi pilin sama ona.
Locked