toki!

[janKipo]

ike la jan Lope li kepeken pu lon tempo lili kin. toki pu li pona tawa ona la on a li kepeken pu. (I suspect he objects to 'kepeken pu' in place of 'kepeken e pu', as well. I object to 'pu' as a tp noun for the book, rather than a intransitive verb.)

[janTepanNetaPelin]

"sama sina li lon, la ..." = "if your equality is ..."
"sama sina la ..." = "at your equality ..." (but I don't mean that)
"sama sina la ..." = "like you ..."
"tawa sina la ..." = "at your movement ..." (but nobody means that)
"tawa sina la ..." = "to you ..."

toki!
prepositions are at the beginning of a prepositional object. A prepositional object can't be alone. It need an action before.

A la phrase is for a condition:
A la B. = If A then B.

In your example the condition A is incomplete. You don't say what is "like you" or "to you".

"sama sina la ..." = "at your equality ..." I mean exactly this! So you are not right.
"tawa sina la ..." = "at your movement ..." I mean exactly this! So you are not right.

Please see also
https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https:// ... 0000000000

Much clearer and grammatical correct are these sentences. I think this is what you mean. Everybody can understand it.

sina toki e toki pona, kepeken pu. mi toki e toki pona, kepeken pu kin.


toki!

toki!

The action "mi pu" is accompanied by "sama mi". I could say "mi pu sama sina", "I read the Book like you". But your point is that "sama sina" in "sama sina la" is noun phrase. You could say that, and also "tan sina la" would be "at your cause" instead of "because of you". Stranger things have happened. Our two interpretations would yield - grammars apart - the same sentences. But your interpretation would also allow for a new class of sentences, which I haven't read in the Book, and - perhaps more importantly - neither in your sentences.

OK, I didn't see this one coming. But am I "not right"? Let's see, shall we?

Your "tawa sina la mi pu" (for example) would be derived from *"mi pu lon tawa sina", and "tan sina la mi pu" would be a variation of *"mi pu lon tan sina". It doesn't end here. If "tawa" and "sama" are nouns and we replace "sina" with "sina mute", we would expect sentences like *"tawa pi sina mute la mi pu" and *"sama pi sina mute la mi pu" (and *"mi pu lon tawa pi sina mute" and *"mi pu lon sama pi sina mute"). Do you mean this as well?

mi tawa.

P.S.: I see you're using your own grammar in order to make your point. Well played, jan Lope, well played.

[jan_Lope]

toki!

The action "mi pu" is accompanied by "sama mi". I could say "mi pu sama sina", "I read the Book like you". But your point is that "sama sina" in "sama sina la" is noun phrase.

In "mi pu, sama sina." is "sama sina" the prepositional object. "sama" is a preposition here. But if you move the prepositional object before "la" you have to skip the preposition. But it works only with "lon" I think.

You could say that, and also "tan sina la" would be "at your cause" instead of "because of you". Stranger things have happened. Our two interpretations would yield - grammars apart - the same sentences. But your interpretation would also allow for a new class of sentences, which I haven't read in the Book, and - perhaps more importantly - neither in your sentences.

Yes, Toki Pona allow often different interpretations. The most sentences have several grammar possibilities. That is sometimes interesting and funny

What do you mean with "new class of sentences"?

OK, I didn't see this one coming. But am I "not right"? Let's see, shall we?

We will see it together.

Your "tawa sina la mi pu" (for example) would be derived from *"mi pu lon tawa sina", and "tan sina la mi pu" would be a variation of *"mi pu lon tan sina". It doesn't end here. If "tawa" and "sama" are nouns and we replace "sina" with "sina mute", we would expect sentences like *"tawa pi sina mute la mi pu" and *"sama pi sina mute la mi pu" (and *"mi pu lon tawa pi sina mute" and *"mi pu lon sama pi sina mute"). Do you mean this as well?

Why not?

P.S.: I see you're using your own grammar in order to make your point. Well played, jan Lope, well played.

[/quote]

I'm not using my own grammar. I try to use logic to fill the gabs.

pona!

[janTepanNetaPelin]

I'm not using my own grammar. I try to use logic to fill the gabs.
pona!

toki!

Either it works only with "lon" and "tan seme la" stands for "lon tan seme?", which is always replaced by "tan seme?" OR you can put "prepositional objects" in front of a sentence using "la" and "lon" is always ommited in the process. I leave this decision to the reader.

(By "new class of sentences" I mean sentences like *"mi pu lon tawa sina".)

I think it would be a nice piece of information for the reader if you could include your findings in your grammar, i.e. that your grammar yields a "lon" in *"mi pu lon tawa sina" and requires a "pi" in *"tawa pi sina mute la mi pu". This would help the reader to make a decision.

mi tawa.

[jan_Lope]

I think it would be a nice piece of information for the reader if you could include your findings in your grammar, i.e. that your grammar yields a "lon" in *"mi pu lon tawa sina" and requires a "pi" in *"tawa pi sina mute la mi pu". This would help the reader to make a decision.

toki!

What do you mean with "your grammar"?

Why do you think a "la" phrase requires a "pi"?

pona!

[janKipo]

Since Lope ( and, I think, Tepan) don't see my comments, this pretty pointless, but the discussion seems a bit muddled. As far as I can make out, Lope is maintaining that only sentences can go before 'la', except for prepositional phrases beginning with 'lon', in which case the 'lon' is always dropped. If true, then phrases like 'tan ni la' "therefore" would have to be understood as 'lon tan ni' "at this cause" or "at the cause of this", neither of which is obviously what the expression means. I'm not sure why Lope takes this position in the face of both the corpus and pu, but clearly in those sources, 1) other prepositions than 'lon' can be fronted ( both 'tan' and 'tawa' have been offered and 'sama' as well) 2) other prepositions can be topped occasionally in fronting (arguably, 'mi la' is from 'tawa mi la' "according to me"), 3) all manner of other expressions ( we really need to work on that list) can occur before 'la' without plausible sentential or prepositional bases: 'nanpa wan', 'ike', 'ken', 'kin', and so on.

[janTepanNetaPelin]

What do you mean with "your grammar"?

Why do you think a "la" phrase requires a "pi"?
pona!

toki!

"Your grammar." - I mean your lessons and your Toki Pona parser.

According to your grammar (i.e. your understanding of Toki Pona's grammar) a sentence can't start with a preposition. Therefore a sentence like "tan seme la sina pu" ("why do you read the Book?") doesn't start with a preposition "tan" but with a noun "tan", and "sina" is its modifier ("at which reason do you read the Book?"). If we take "jan seme" instead of "seme" ("because of whom do you read the Book?") your grammar yields "tan pi jan seme la sina pu?" ("at whose reason do you read the Book?").

This should answer the question why I think that (according to your grammar) (complex) "la"-sentences require a "pi".

mi tawa.

[jan_Lope]

"Your grammar." - I mean your lessons and your Toki Pona parser.

My lessons and Parser are in accordance to the official Toki Pona book.

According to your grammar (i.e. your understanding of Toki Pona's grammar) a sentence can't start with a preposition. Therefore a sentence like "tan seme la sina pu" ("why do you read the Book?") doesn't start with a preposition "tan" but with a noun "tan", and "sina" is its modifier ("at which reason do you read the Book?"). If we take "jan seme" instead of "seme" ("because of whom do you read the Book?") your grammar yields "tan pi jan seme la sina pu?" ("at whose reason do you read the Book?").

This should answer the question why I think that (according to your grammar) (complex) "la"-sentences require a "pi".
mi tawa.

I can't follow you. "sina" is no modifier here. You can use "pi" accordingly to what you like to say. It is independent from "la".

These discussion is ver off topic. Please use this post: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2659

[janTepanNetaPelin]

"Your grammar." - I mean your lessons and your Toki Pona parser.

My lessons and Parser are in accordance to the official Toki Pona book.

According to your grammar (i.e. your understanding of Toki Pona's grammar) a sentence can't start with a preposition. Therefore a sentence like "tan seme la sina pu" ("why do you read the Book?") doesn't start with a preposition "tan" but with a noun "tan", and "sina" is its modifier ("at which reason do you read the Book?"). If we take "jan seme" instead of "seme" ("because of whom do you read the Book?") your grammar yields "tan pi jan seme la sina pu?" ("at whose reason do you read the Book?").

This should answer the question why I think that (according to your grammar) (complex) "la"-sentences require a "pi".
mi tawa.

I can't follow you. "sina" is no modifier here. You can use "pi" accordingly to what you like to say. It is independent from "la".

These discussion is ver off topic. Please use this post: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2659

See you there.