la phrases

[jan Alanto]

jan Lope o, toki!

I think we agree in more stuff than I expected.

There isn't so much effort to be put on just putting a preposition on another position, without even changing its meaning. Just put it there. End. "la" is not defined in terms of "lon" when not a conditional. It has an unique structure, too: it links a fragment to a sentence.

I tried not to involve multi-type words in the discussion because they can be any of their types. The order doesn't matter. Just like "tawa" in the infamous example, "sama" can mean "equal" or "as". But in this particular case, probably one meaning makes more sense than the other. After all, "sama" before "la" means "equally", like in "mi pu. sama la sina pu." (I pu, and equally you pu.) and so, how would sina modify "equally"? I think a sentence like "as you la I pu." easier than "equally you-ly la mi pu." Observe that "sama la sina pu." can also be written "sina pu sama." And "sama" can't be a preposition here, neither isolated before la. But if you also don't consider "sama la" to mean "equally", then you're negating "sama" is an adjective, because for you its only correct interpretation is that of "lon": "mi pu lon sama." (frankly, I don't see much difference, but only an unneeded transformation of sama into a noun to say the same thing differently, less clearly).

It was not just Tepan who wrote sama is a preposition there. He's got Sonja's word that this was possible. I can't see how "mi pu sama sina." is clearer than "sama sina la mi pu." Actually, I think the opposite: Couldn't "mi pu sama sina." mean "I pu equally you-ly"? What about "mi pu lon sama sina." (I pu on your equalness)? Aren't those the other possible ways of expressing "sama sina la mi pu."? They're more complex in my view. Maybe simplicity is subjective, just like anything in toki pona.

[janTepanNetaPelin]

toki!

Yesterday in this post
https://www.facebook.com/groups/sitelen/permalink/1499348783452835/?comment_id=1500329210021459&notif_t=group_comment&notif_id=1504325426145302

in the Toki Pona Facebook group I asked:

In the forums jan Lope says that Sonja confirmed to him via email that "ona li mama ala mama?" on page 32 of pu has a wrong translation:
"The translation of the sentence "ona li mama ala mama?" is wrong in pu page 32, because "mama" is a verb here. Sonja wrote very clearly that before and after "ala" has to be a verb. The translation is "Does she mother (somebody)? Does she wet-nurse (somebody)?". Sonja confirmed this error to me via email."
Do you know anything about this? To me, "mama" can mean "parent" or "to be a parent" when used after "li" (i.e. as a predicate). I'm quite incredulous that Sonja might have said/implied that:
- "mama" means "mother" (instead of "parent")
- "mama" after "li" is short for "mama e", which means "to mother (somebody)", "to wet-nurse (somebody)"
mi tawa.

Sonja replied:

I don't remember anything about page 32. But I agreed there is a typo on page 38: Epawan

has run out of mics to drop

[jan_Lope]

toki!
In the forums jan Lope says that Sonja confirmed to him via email that "ona li mama ala mama?" on page 32 of pu has a wrong translation:

jan TepanNetaPelin o, toki!

I looked at Sonja's e-mail again. She wrote (28 Oct 2015):

"Those are some interesting ideas! Too late for me to change anything, of course."

Sorry, it's not a real confession. Everyone can make their own judgement on this.

pona!

[jan_Lope]

jan Alanto, o toki!

I think we agree in more stuff than I expected.

ni li pona, tawa mi!

There isn't so much effort to be put on just putting a preposition on another position, without even changing its meaning.
Just put it there. End.

You cannot place a preposition anywhere in the sentence. Please read what a preposition is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prepositi ... stposition

After all, "sama" before "la" means "equally", like in "mi pu.

Right! "equally" is a noun here.

I can't see how "mi pu sama sina." is clearer than "sama sina la mi pu."

Actually, I think the opposite: Couldn't "mi pu sama sina." mean "I pu equally you-ly"?

If you're quoting me, please do it right. I've wrote:

"mi pu, sama sina."

The comma stops the phrase before. After the comma can here only be a prepositional object. "sama" can only be a preposition here. If you remove the comma, your grammar interpretation is possible also. But this is not what I've wrote.


Here a clear grammar statement in accordance with jan Pije and pu: A prepositions starts a prepositional object. A prepositional object is an optional part of a verb phrase and can be only at the end of a verb phrase (after optional [in]direct objects). In a prepositional object can only be a compound [pro]noun after the prepostion.

Please give me a clear grammar statement to your view about prepositions in "la" phrases.

pona!

[jan Alanto]

jan Lope o, toki!

I wasn't referring to the position of a preposition related to its object (if it's a pre- or postposition). But the position of a preposition phrase (prep + prep object) in a sentence. In my view the only positions a preposition can't be are as subject and object (direct or indirect) because those positions can't have nothing other than a noun. For you, the position before "la" belongs to that class too. This has nothing to do with prepositions, because their position is not defined as only at the end. It's just that if you consider only nouns before "la", then this follows logically. And prepositions couldn't be presented early in the "la" position because "la" is one of the last lessons in all courses. By the way, Pije is so limiting about "la" that he only considers "ken la" and "tenpo ... la" (so cutting off "lon X = X la") apart from conditionals. So you're not in the end of the scale of restrictiveness. As you, he also obviously doesn't put prepositions before "la".

These statements are in accordance with pu but not Pije: A preposition starts a prepositional object. A prepositional object is an optional part of a verb phrase and can be at the end of a verb phrase (after optional [in]direct objects) or it can be before "la", thus relating to all verb phrases in the sentence. In a prepositional object can only be a compound [pro]noun after the preposition.

In Kipo's grammar, prepositions can also be after nouns (connected by "pi") and before direct objects (also with "pi"), allowing even more freedom for writers.

So I must admit that your grammar is the one that tries the most to be in accordance to every other toki pona teacher to avoid misinterpretations and accusations of misteaching (resting only the structure of compound predicates with mi/sina and poka as preposition to be whipped off your lessons, or are you going to let them be?).

And this rule with commas is also an innovation of yours, because, for me, commas are only ornamental and I only use them after vocatives (Sonja also uses them between a conditional sentence and "la" and between verb phrases in most such compound sentences).

[janKipo]

Thanks. I have been contemplating actually sitting down and reading all the textbooks again, but you have done a big chunk of my work for me. (The bit about PPs attached to verbs by 'pi' before DOs is very tentative and relies on some advanced (so questionable) techniques, at least in the predicate.)

[jan_Lope]

jan Alanto o, toki!
Thank you for your comments

These statements are in accordance with pu but not Pije: A preposition starts a prepositional object.
A prepositional object is an optional part of a verb phrase and can be at the end of a verb phrase (after optional [in]direct objects) or it can be before "la", thus relating to all verb phrases in the sentence.
In a prepositional object can only be a compound [pro]noun after the preposition.

Interesting statement. But the following points speak against it:

jan Pije's lesson doesn't allow this. In "pu" prepositions are at the end of a sentences (pu page 34). Other lessons are similar.

It brings more ambiguity. It is often impossible to distinguish between noun and preposition here.

Breaking a verb phrase creates confusion. "to all verb phrases in the sentence" means you have at least two verp phrases in this sentences. It is better to split up a long sentence and build short sentences.

You need a exception rule for "lon": A lon B. = B lon A. (pu page 52)

"A la B." means "If A then B." (pu page 51). Your construct is: "If prepositional object then noun phrase (verb phrase1 - prepositional object) (verb phrase2 - prepositional object)" This is very confusing!

This will be an additional rule. The golden rule of Toki Pona is: "Keep it as simple as possible." There is no need for this additional rules, because you can split your construction in two sentences.

So I must admit that your grammar is the one that tries the most to be in accordance to every other toki pona teacher to avoid misinterpretations and accusations of misteaching
(resting only the structure of compound predicates with mi/sina and poka as preposition to be whipped off your lessons, or are you going to let them be?).

Now I 'm writing more explanations on grammar in my lessons. For example the chapter "Basic Sentences". I compare the "missing be" with the rules in similar languages and why after "li" can not be a preposition. Please read the ( https://jan-lope.github.io/Toki_Pona_lessons_English/ ).

For "poka" please see here viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2667

What is with "compound predicates with mi/sina"?

Thanks and pona

[jan Alanto]

jan Lope o, toki! pona tawa sina.

Maybe it was a mistake from my part to say it's in accordance with pu. It's actually in accordance with Sonja. But I don't distinguish those two entities in regard to toki pona guidance.

The ambiguity may be a strong argument for you, but for me the noun reading is almost completely nonsensical, so ruled out most of the time (maybe even all the time).

While it might be considered pona style to just split all sentences, sometimes this isn't necessary or is just pedantic. If Sonja didn't liked that she wouldn't have created that. Then all sentences would be split like those with mi/sina.

If B in "A la B." has 2 verb phrases, the statement is equally complex and can be even more if A also has. "If noun phrase1 verb phrase1 then noun phrase2 (verb phrase2 - noun phrase1 verb phrase1) (verb phrase3 - noun phrase1 verb phrase1)". And this isn't argument to ruling out this kind of structure. That (of applying the argument of "la" to all verb phrases of the following sentence) is inherent to "la", so prepositions have nothing to do with that complexity. This and that "la" doesn't always mean "if - then". I can't see A la B = B lon A as an exception, since it's a direct consequence of being in some context. The case with prepositions also is consequence of the direct application of the true meaning of "la" "in the context of (being) from this la B", "in the context of using tool la B".

Even if it's an additional rule, it was Sonja who granted it by writing two or more examples in her book and a comment on Facebook.

Problem with that explanation is that after "li" can, indeed, be a preposition, Sonja doesn't even say it acts like a verb there. Although Pije says it does act like a verb there, he then he adds a new category of "action verbs", so more definitions and rules and ike. I'm not willing to keep on with that argument since we already discussed that and reached nowhere ("mi lon tomo." means "I exist in a housey way" whatever that means if "lon" is a verb instead of a preposition).

In your lessons you use "mi moku li pakala" as an example of how to do compound sentences with "mi". But Lesson 16 of Sonja's book says that in the case of "mi" or "sina" (and by extension, "o" too) one should start a new sentence instead of joining the verbs with "li". (more deviation from the main topic )

mi wile e ni: sina toki e ijo tawa toki ni. (Do you understand that as "I'm willing for an answer for this"? jw)

[jan_Lope]

jan Alanto o, toki!

thanks for your ideas.

The ambiguity may be a strong argument for you,

pona!

but for me the noun reading is almost completely nonsensical, so ruled out most of the time (maybe even all the time).

Please see here: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2659#p15705

I can't see A la B = B lon A as an exception, since it's a direct consequence of being in some context.

"A" can't start with a preposition here because "A" is a prepositional object without a preposition. "A" can start with an (pro)noun only. "A" can't start with "lon".

The case with prepositions also is consequence of the direct application of the true meaning of "la"
"in the context of (being) from this la B", "in the context of using tool la B".

Please give reasons for this.

Problem with that explanation is that after "li" can, indeed, be a preposition,

No it can't. You need a predicate (a verb, a predicate noun or a predicate adjective) similar to Russian or Arabic. The "missing be" can't be alone. Otherwise "mi." or "sina." or "ona li." are possible sentences. But this is wrong. In the sentence "mi lon tomo." is "lon" a intransitive verb.
Please see https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https:// ... 0000000000

In your lessons you use "mi moku li pakala" as an example of how to do compound sentences with "mi".
But Lesson 16 of Sonja's book says that in the case of "mi" or "sina" (and by extension, "o" too) one should start a new sentence instead of joining the verbs with "li". (more deviation from the main topic )

Please see jan Pije's lesson: http://tokipona.net/tp/janpije/okamasona4.php
But I've added this sentence in my lessons: "The official Toki Pona book recommends to use only a verb phrase for mi or sina as subject."

[janKipo]

I recommend giving up. Lope's position is fairly bulletproof, since he simply says that exceptions to his rule are simply wrong ("slang") or has another (often horribly implausible but internally consistent) interpretation of what is going on. So far as I can tell, everything he allows is good tp, though often oddly explained. Even much of what he seems to disallowed is in fact allow, oddly explained again. That is, I am sure he allows "tan ni la mi kama' But he would explain it in terms of what it means for the cause of this (previous situation) to be a context for my coming. It would end up right (somehow) but take a long way 'round to get there.