Toki Pona Forums

toki!

what do you think: "Is "poka" a spatial noun only or can it be a preposition too?"

And if it is a preposition, how different is it from "lon poka (pi)"?

"mi pali e tomo mi poka sina." (if possible) = "mi pali e tomo mi lon poka sina."?
"mi musi poka sina." = "mi musi lon poka sina."?

For me this is valid, but by the old lessons I never abandoned completely, instead of pu.

Sonja sanctioned 'poka' ascomitative "with" a few years ago, then took it back in pu. In the meantime, it had become firmly entrenched in the corpus, I.e., the language, as distinct from 'Lon poka'. It doesn't seem to be spatial restrictively, since I ca be poka someone in spirit while not in the flesh. Some Lopedoesn"t believe in the language as a living entity ("slang" he calls it), these facts are not relevant to his enterprise of constructing the simplest set of adequate rules for what he takes pu to say.
It is useful to remember that tp existed for more than a decade before pu came out; it was not created by pu. Pu is, st best, an introductory textbook to a language already in progress. It is not the last world or even the middle word on the subject ( compare with an elementary textbook in any natural language).

The problem (or the solution) is that Lope still uses "poka" as a preposition, albeit with the same meaning as "lon poka (pi)". Pije, on the other side disapproves completely the usage of poka as preposition and says that "lon poka (pi)" is how you translate "with" into toki pona.

I think I haven't expressed well that I only find it valid that "lon poka (pi)" is equal to "poka". For me, using "poka" as preposition is valid, but not with the same meaning as "lon poka (pi)".

That seems to be the majority view. 'poka' alone means "with" in some broad comitative sense., 'lon poka' means "beside, next to" is a spatial sense (though it , too, may have a broader use "on the side of" -- but there are no clear cases). In any case, they are different though related.

jan Alanto wrote:The problem (or the solution) is that Lope still uses "poka" as a preposition, albeit with the same meaning as "lon poka (pi)". Pije, on the other side disapproves completely the usage of poka as preposition and says that "lon poka (pi)" is how you translate "with" into toki pona.

I think I haven't expressed well that I only find it valid that "lon poka (pi)" is equal to "poka". For me, using "poka" as preposition is valid, but not with the same meaning as "lon poka (pi)".

I still don't like that "mi tawa poka sina" would have two meanings that would be hard to tell apart (even with context).

In addition, one could easily make up new prepositions like that (e.g. "sewi" instead of "lon sewi pi").

Plus, it's not in pu.

→ Say no to preposition "poka".

What would preposition "sewi" mean? "poka" exists because we want to have "with", one of the more basic prepositions present in almost all languages (if not all), it was chosen to reduce word count, since it would have been "kan". There is no preposition that could be "sewi", unless you're refering to "up", but akin to "up" is "next to" which is "lon poka", not "with". That's not a valid attack on "poka" as preposition.

As for "mi tawa poka sina." It's easier to say "I go to your side" as "mi tawa sina." and probably "mi tawa poka sina." ("I go with you.") might also be expressed as "mi tawa lon poka sina." ("I go next to you.", see how they seem equal even in English), although longer. That's not to say "poka" equals to "lon poka", just that in some contexts, it really doesn't seem to make much difference. But in many other contexts, it'd be strange to say "next to" instead of "with" (I build a house with you/in your company. vs. I build a house next to you/at your side/near you.). Since that seems to give you zero bothering, then you have your argument justified. nasin pona li mute.

jan Alanto wrote:What would preposition "sewi" mean? "poka" exists because we want to have "with", one of the more basic prepositions present in almost all languages (if not all), it was chosen to reduce word count, since it would have been "kan". There is no preposition that could be "sewi", unless you're refering to "up", but akin to "up" is "next to" which is "lon poka", not "with". That's not a valid attack on "poka" as preposition.

As for "mi tawa poka sina." It's easier to say "I go to your side" as "mi tawa sina." and probably "mi tawa poka sina." ("I go with you.") might also be expressed as "mi tawa lon poka sina." ("I go next to you.", see how they seem equal even in English), although longer. That's not to say "poka" equals to "lon poka", just that in some contexts, it really doesn't seem to make much difference. But in many other contexts, it'd be strange to say "next to" instead of "with" (I build a house with you/in your company. vs. I build a house next to you/at your side/near you.). Since that seems to give you zero bothering, then you have your argument justified. nasin pona li mute.

Hm... let me think of something for "sewi"... it could mean "more than". "mi jo sewi tomo tu" or maybe "mi jo e tomo sewi tu" (I have more than two houses). Or maybe "about"? (In German, "about" and "above" are the same word.) "mi toki sewi sina" (I am talking about you). I am not talking about "up".

So you would resolve the ambiguity of "mi tawa poka sina" by not using it. That solves the problem, of course!

Something else to consider, perhaps (if "poka" is a preposition): "jan poka" could be my colleague (my co-worker) or my neighbor. "jan poka mi" could be "my neighbor" or "the person that I'm doing something with". Well, the latter interpretation would trigger a "pi" with people that don't distinguish between nouns and prepositions: "jan pi poka mi", which sounds also like "person at my side"...

Here is another construction that needs to be avoided (like "mi tawa poka sina"): "tomo mi li lon poka tomo sina" means "my house stands together with your house", which means the same as "tomo mi li lon poka pi tomo sina", which means "my house stands next to your house".

As always, I will understand you anyways, because I know about the preposition "poka". It's not a problem for me.

toki!

In my lessons, I no longer list "poka" as a preposition. "poka is a spatial noun like "anpa", "insa", "monsi", "noka" , "sinpin" and "sewi". "anpa", "insa", "monsi", "noka" , "sinpin" and "sewi" are not prepositions either. "poka" as a preposition would be an exception rule. Exception rules are contrary to the golden Toki Pona rule: Keep it as simple as possible.

In pu and other lessons "poka" is not list as a prepostition.

pona!

Talking to a brick wall again, it is hard to totally disagree with Lope. 'poka x' should not be a preposition to replace 'lon poka {x}', thus setting a precedent for doing a similar shift for all the other position words. But this does not speak to whether it might be a preposition with another (remotely related) meaning, comitative "with". Once Sonja opened this door, it is hard for her to close it, since a mass of text has arisen in the intervening years, text that cannot be simply "corrected" to 'lon poka', since the new use is clearly non-positional in many cases. Lope is left with using 'lon poka {x}' is a widely extended sense, possible setting a precedent for similar extensions in other positions. In the meantime, his rule will cause at least some misunderstanding in the wider community.