sin pi toki nanpa tan jan Sonja

Tinkerers Anonymous: Some people can't help making changes to "fix" Toki Pona. This is a playground for their ideas.
Tokiponidistoj: Iuj homoj nepre volas fari ŝanĝojn por "ripari" Tokiponon. Jen ludejo por iliaj ideoj.
User avatar
jan Ote
Posts: 424
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 1:15 am
Location: ma Posuka
Contact:

Re: sin pi toki nanpa tan jan Sonja

Postby jan Ote » Mon Oct 12, 2009 3:13 pm

jan-ante wrote:because we dont want to have some special words for 3 ... 9. wa have already special words for wan and tu. so i suggest to make a maximal use of this. to me the maximal use is a ternary system
True. But it's more complicated than the old system with "tu-wan, tu-tu, tu-tu-wan" and more complicated than the new "Advanced system" with 5, 20, 100. So it's more ike, isn't it?
en janKipo en jan Sowlilili li toki pona.

jan-ante
Posts: 541
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 4:05 pm

Re: sin pi toki nanpa tan jan Sonja

Postby jan-ante » Mon Oct 12, 2009 3:27 pm

jak Ote wrote: True. But it's more complicated than the old system with "tu-wan, tu-tu, tu-tu-wan" and more complicated than the new "Advanced system" with 5, 20, 100. So it's more ike, isn't it?

then positional system with arabic numerals is more complicated than roman numeral system. i cannot agree. ternary system is more simple than decimal, everyone familiar with decimal system can easily use a ternary one. as for "advanced system", it is ambiguous, as jan Loliko and jan Sowelilili pointed out.

User avatar
jan Ote
Posts: 424
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 1:15 am
Location: ma Posuka
Contact:

Re: sin pi toki nanpa tan jan Sonja

Postby jan Ote » Mon Oct 12, 2009 3:52 pm

jan-ante wrote:
jan Sowelilili wrote: so I have no problem with saying nanpa Inli "sixty four" or writing nanpa "64"
just witghout "nanpa", because "nanpa" is ordinal
But is "nanpa" only for ordinals? I don't think so. It's rather an "operator converting a word into a number or amount". And old page from tokipona.org, before wiki replaced the texts, said that: "jan sona nanpa -- mathematican". In my opinion numbers (or "numbers") in toki pona work like this:

"wan" = singularity
"jan wan" = ~ singular person, we say: one person
"jan pi nanpa wan" = "person of (number of singularity) = "person [of] (number one)" = first person
"tu" = duality
"soweli tu" = ~ dual animal, we say: two animals
"soweli pi nanpa tu" = "animal of (number of duality)" = second animal


So, "wan"=1, and "tu"=2, are not quite precise meanings. I mean: "wan" and "tu" are not numbers in the strict sense. The only way to make a number (both: ordinal and cardinal) in toki pona is to use "nanpa".
"nanpa tu" = number of duality = two

User avatar
jan Ote
Posts: 424
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 1:15 am
Location: ma Posuka
Contact:

Re: sin pi toki nanpa tan jan Sonja

Postby jan Ote » Mon Oct 12, 2009 4:20 pm

jan-ante wrote:then positional system with arabic numerals is more complicated than roman numeral system.
Yes, it is. The idea of positional system(s) is more complicated than for systems with addition only

Code: Select all

  I
  II
  III
  IIII
  V
  VI
  VII
  VIII
  VIIII
  X
  XI
  XII

It's pretty easy to understand. Additional symbols (V, X) are just shortcuts for "IIIII" and "VV", respectively.
But the thing:

Code: Select all

   "10" means "one x ten + zero x one"
is not so easy.
jan-ante wrote:as for "advanced system", it is ambiguous, as jan Loliko and jan Sowelilili pointed out.
Yes, it is. Fortunatelly, it's described as strongly not recommended. Just like the old one.

jan-ante
Posts: 541
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 4:05 pm

Re: sin pi toki nanpa tan jan Sonja

Postby jan-ante » Mon Oct 12, 2009 4:22 pm

jak Ote wrote:But is "nanpa" only for ordinals? I don't think so. It's rather an "operator converting a word into a number or amount". And old page from tokipona.org, before wiki replaced the texts, said that: "jan sona nanpa -- mathematican".

really, Sonja was not wise replacing her old page with incomplete version of new one. but many thanks to Google for its cash
it has a meaning "number", but when it stands before wan/tu it is an ordinal number.
mi pakala e ilo nanpa 8 - i damaged an 8th tool
mi pakala e ilo 8 - i damaged 8 tools

jan-ante
Posts: 541
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 4:05 pm

Re: sin pi toki nanpa tan jan Sonja

Postby jan-ante » Mon Oct 12, 2009 4:25 pm

jak Ote wrote: The idea of positional system(s) is more complicated than for systems with addition only.

but you know this idea already. just re-use it in simplified (ternary) version

janKipo
Posts: 3036
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:20 pm

Re: sin pi toki nanpa tan jan Sonja

Postby janKipo » Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:52 pm

tenpo pini lili la mi sitelen e toki pi musi mute en pi sona mute. nena 'Submit' li lon poka wan. sitelen "Accept" li lon poka ante. lon ni la ilo li weka e toki mi. pakala ! kepeken sitelen kalama suli "F".

Anyhoo, what I said was (without the charm or sagacity of the original)
1. position systems are more complex than tp's because they are at least one level of abstraction further away from things: tp may have piles, but it doesn't have piles of piles. Roman numeral are complex because they are half a dozen systems functioning more or less together (old IE quarternary, quinquenary, decimal, vigesimal all with a mixture of additions and subtractions and multiplications). Ternary numbers are hard because we don't know them and can't work them fast in our heads.
2. 'nanpa Inli "64"' refers to a number but does not obviously work as a quantifier: 'kulupu pi nanpa Inli "64"' is not obviously 64 groups nor a group with 64 things in it nor a group called "The 64(th)" or the 64th group in some list, but 'toki pona la nanpa Inli 64 li nanpa suli" is true.
3. 'nanpa mute' can mean 'manieth,' some fairly far along ordinal place (i.e third or more), but it can't mean "big number" in the appropriate sense. I've tried to think of some way of doing that other than using 'suli' but all are hideously complex -- and 'nanpa suli' is established usage for at least seven years now.
4. All of this detail work ignores the fundamental point, that tp actively discourages enumerating multitudes, as a matter of peace of mind, if nothing else. And it does seem we don't really need them for much real stuff -- except for matching numerals. Which is why I suggested (again, I should note) that Sonja needs to give us a way of reading numerals without any ordinal or cardinal significance -- just as we have (or could use) a way of reading letters without any phonological significance

jan Sowelilili
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 9:26 pm

Re: sin pi toki nanpa tan jan Sonja

Postby jan Sowelilili » Mon Oct 12, 2009 9:33 pm

janKipo wrote:tenpo pini lili la mi sitelen e toki pi musi mute en pi sona mute. nena 'Submit' li lon poka wan. sitelen "Accept" li lon poka ante. lon ni la ilo li weka e toki mi. pakala ! kepeken sitelen kalama suli "F".


tenpo suno pini la, mi kin li pali e sama :x


2. 'nanpa Inli "64"' refers to a number but does not obviously work as a quantifier: 'kulupu pi nanpa Inli "64"' is not obviously 64 groups nor a group with 64 things in it nor a group called "The 64(th)" or the 64th group in some list, but 'toki pona la nanpa Inli 64 li nanpa suli" is true.


agree. When I used nanpa 64, I was referring to the number itself. However, while I readily accept the ordinal/cardinal distinction between jan tu and jan pi nanpa tu I do not feel that this distinction necessarily applies if I use nanpa "64". Context is all. I would accept jan pi nanpa "64" either as 64 people or the 64th person depending on the context. (Although I would be questionning whether it is really necessary to say either in tp).

I don't think I need to point out that such ambiguity which needs to be resolved by the context is the way of toki pona.

I've tried to think of some way of doing that other than using 'suli' but all are hideously complex -- and 'nanpa suli' is established usage for at least seven years now.

And I don't see the problem with it. Just as I am happy to accept that kasi suli can be a large tree, not necessarily an important tree. I think the meaning and usage of the word suli cover its use in nanpa suli, and as pointed out this usage is so well established that it causes little ambiguity in this context.

User avatar
jan Ote
Posts: 424
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 1:15 am
Location: ma Posuka
Contact:

Re: sin pi toki nanpa tan jan Sonja

Postby jan Ote » Tue Oct 13, 2009 4:53 am

janKipo wrote:All of this detail work ignores the fundamental point, that tp actively discourages enumerating multitudes, as a matter of peace of mind, if nothing else. And it does seem we don't really need them for much real stuff
Indeed.
janKipo wrote:Sonja needs to give us a way of reading numerals without any ordinal or cardinal significance -- just as we have (or could use) a way of reading letters without any phonological significance
It would require introducing new words, I suppose. Several new words.

janKipo wrote:'nanpa mute' can mean 'manieth,' some fairly far along ordinal place (i.e third or more), but it can't mean "big number" in the appropriate sense.
I do not understand why it can't mean "big number", "number [of] many"? :oops:
BTW, in some Slavic languages there are two different meanings for English "number":
1. число, liczba - number as a quantity by itself. ("number 3 is greater than number 2"; "to add two numbers")
2. номер, numer - number as a label, a code etc. (phone no., issue no., serial no., consecutive, ordinal number)
So I see "numerals" in toki pona like this:
Given that central notion, concept of "wan" is singularity (not "(number) 1"), we have
soweli wan = singular soweli
(we translate it as "one soweli")
nanpa wan = number(число)-of-singular (as many as singular)
-> transl.: "1" (not "1st")
soweli nanpa wan = soweli [of] `number-of-singular`
-> transl.: "soweli labeled `1`" -> "the first soweli"
I wonder, what's Sonja's opinion.
Then, why "nanpa mute" cannot mean "a number of many/plurality/numerous"?

jan Sowelilili wrote:it causes little ambiguity in this context.
Right, in this context "nanpa suli" doesn't mean "important number". It's not ambigous here, but neither "nanpa mute" is. I prefer the latter because a) "mute" suits better for "amount, quantity", b) ambiguity of "mute" in "nanpa mute li ike" can be used to express my attitude: 'jan li moku' is better than 'jan tu li moku'. Maybe I'm more Catholic than the Pope.

janKipo wrote:and 'nanpa suli' is established usage for at least seven years now.
jan Sowelilili wrote:as pointed out this usage is so well established that it causes little ambiguity in this context.
Language custom always wins.

User avatar
jan Ote
Posts: 424
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 1:15 am
Location: ma Posuka
Contact:

Re: sin pi toki nanpa tan jan Sonja

Postby jan Ote » Tue Oct 13, 2009 5:36 am

jan-ante wrote:it has a meaning "number", but when it stands before wan/tu it is an ordinal number
Could you please quote the excerpt? I can't see anything like this stated there. I believe "nanpa tu" can mean an ordinal or cardinal number, depending on a sentence.


Return to “jan nasa li wile ante e toki pona”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests