re: parts of speech
Maybe it would be less controversial if we had a toki pona name for them, the same way that Lojban has names for parts of speech brivla, cmene, cmavo re: what kind of clauses I think I'm seeing
Yeah, I'm not sure what clauses I think I'm seeing, in the english or tp. I think the verbs and the clause structure of any langauge will be the hardest to define and unlike gender or modifer agreement, getting rid of verbs and phrase co-ordinating strategies wouldn't simplify a language. (Riding a bicycle is simple until you need to explain how the physics works.) I think if I was defining a language, the language definition would probably be a bit incomplete in the area of verbs and phrase syntax-- those areas are just complicated, in tp or any language. Even piraha has a bazillion forms of each verb (because it has agglutinating verbs). And I would be so brave to say isolating languages that don't inflect, like tp, are doomed to have more complex word order rules.re: necessity of clauses at all
I agree writing could be done without any "[prep] ni : [sentence]" phrases, I agree. We probably could still write usable tp without he canonical "li X e ni: Y" phrase, too. But, I think it is arguable if the alternatives are easier, clearer or equivallent.re: is "tan ni + sentence" legit (or anything like that)
"tan ni : " + sentence
canonical or defacto acceptable?
Personally, I favor all prepositions *should* be able to introduce clauses. [np] + li + [vp] + e ni + [setentence] + [lon/tan/anpa/poki/insa/kepeken/...] ni + [sentence]
I'm under the impression that all sentences of the above type are not canonical right now. If they are
, then the thesis of my post is moot.
I like this pattern because it seems like it has parallels to a canonical pattern, so if is tinkering with the artist's prerogatives, it's a pretty conservative change, but with dramatic impact.re: the Santa clause?
ni li toki a a a nasa. tenpo ni li poki tenpo pi jan Kurisuto.re: [np] + pi + [n] + ni + [sentence] e.g. jan pi ilo ni: ilo li pakala e tomo
Is that canonical or defacto?
To follow the "[np] li [vp] e ni : [sentence]" pattern, it would be "jan pi ni: ilo li pakala e tomo", which would be useful for embedding setences into noun phrases-- but it would mean pi was departing from it's role as a mere noun phrase building tool. I see why you added the "pi ilo ni" though, it was so there would be 2 words after pi.re: ni + [sentence fragment/noun phrase]
If someone says..*? mi lukin kepeken ni ilo pi oko tu. / I see therewith my eyeglasses
Either it's bad tp, or they are trying to introducing a clause with a noun phrase because "ni" should modify "ilo", e.g.mi lukin kepeken ilo pi oko tu ni
. / I see with my glasses (better tp, but doesn't look like a "[prep] ni : X" phrase anymore)mi lukin kepeken ni: mi kama jo lon esun ilo pi oko tu. / I see with that which I bought at the opticians.re: 'jan Mato li sina li jan pi sona toki ala. sina kam sona e toki pali' ... study constructed languages'
mi jan Mato li jan pi sona toki ala. mi kama sona e ni: toki li toki ale.
I'm Matt the non-linguist. I study the languages that people don't speak. (now it's funnier again.