Page 3 of 3

Re: Use of "la" vs. putting adj./adv. after verb?

Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2016 5:32 pm
by janTepanNetaPelin
janAleje wrote:Hi everyone! I'm new here, but hope to one day be a fluent tokiponist. I'm a little confused as to the use of "la." According to this: it "separates an adverb of context" from the sentence. I don't know what an "adverb of context" is, but I assume it's some type of adverb. What I'm wondering is, for example, would you be able to say "he eats well" in two ways: "ona li moku pona" and "pona la ona li moku"? Thanks for the help.


Simply put, "la" allows you to start a sentence with a preposition: sina jan pona tawa mi. → tawa mi la sina jan pona.

The preposition "lon" is omitted, though: mi moku lon tomo. → tomo la mi moku.

Even more tricky, but the last thing to mention is that in "if"-sentences, "lon ni" is omitted: mi lape lon ni: mi wile lape. → mi wile lape, la mi lape.

If you say *"pona la ona li moku", that should mean the same as *"ona li moku lon pona", "he eats at good", which is not used for "he eats good" or "ona li moku pona".


Re: Use of "la" vs. putting adj./adv. after verb?

Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2016 10:33 am
by janKipo
As I've said before (often), 'la' does (among other things) allow moving prepositions from the end of the sentence to the beginning, usually with the same meaning (but not always, see 'tan ni', where the 'ni' picks up different referents by its position). And, yes, 'lon' is usually lost, especially with 'tenpo'.
The purported loss of 'lon ni' is not convincing, since there seems to be no reason to think it was ever there to begin with (although it does provide some connection between the two main uses of 'la', which is nice.)
The interpretation of 'pona la' is ruined by 1. nobody says the purported source and 2. the expression doesn't mean that.
I note in passing that none of the things here noted as odd are in pu or follow in an obvious way from what is in pu.