janMato wrote:The accusative clitic "e" and the other clitics "sama", "lon", "kepeken", etc. seem to be related. They seem to serve the role of prepositions or cases.
Why call them clitics; they just are prepositions or verbs or adjectives functioning prepositionally (all this is already a little beyond truly tp grammar). That they serve the role of prepositions is accurate; cases less so, since there are no cases in tp (nor in universal grammar come to that, so this is relative to some other particular grammars that go in for that sort of thing).
We can by canon, write this:
[noun phrase] e ni : [sentence]. And the sentence after "ni" modifies "ni".
Well, is the referent of it, anyhow.
So if I have a thing in mind that takes a whole sentence (because it's actions are the salient features), I can refer to it in the accusative. But not the locative (lon), instrumental (kepeken), causal (tan), lative/dative (tawa), etc. This seems entirely unfair to deprive these prepositions of a clause introducing role.
The trick is, of course, that the 'ni:' calls attention to events and propositions, the referents and intensions of sentences, and these do not regularly come into language in places other than as the objects of verbs of mentation and references to causal connections ('tan ni' is, contrary to your remark, quite legit and frequent). Should an appropriate occasion arise, the other forms would be quite as legit. that is, the other prepositions are not deprived, merely not used. Indeed, though I cannot think of a case, I can easily imagine seeinf 'mi pali e ni tawa ni; mi kama jo e mani' "I do this so that I make money" and other similar locutiions. I can't think of a case where 'lon' would be plausible at the moment, but, then, I am not very creative (which means, inter alia, that I suspect that I have seen a 'tawa' case).
Can I do the same with all the other prepositions? Has anyone else tried to? Can we trust a community reference even if it appears to be embedded in a sentence with other stylistic and grammar errors? And what is a santa clause? Inquiring minds want to know.
Santa clause? I am (as often) not sure what you are talking about here. Your basic questions is answered (an always was, just not stressed, because it did not cover a major English category, like "that" clauses).
... prep + ni : [sentence]
... prep + ni : [noun phrase, i.e. sentence fragment]
Sometimes the "prep + ni" is followed by a ":" sometimes not.
If it is only a noun phrases, then it can replace 'ni' (perhaps inelegantly). The colon is a writing convention, not a linguistic one and is only sporadically followed (and the only at the end of sentences, not when the 'ni' is embedded). I suppose it has some occasional phonetic parallel, but am not sure (I haven't heard much tp, either).
We also have things like this, which gets really close to relative clauses. ... prep + [noun] + ni : [sentence]
... prep + [noun] + ni : [noun phrase]
jan li sona li sona pona e jan ni: jan Sonja li mama pi toki pona.
People knows and knows well whom is Sonja, inventor of toki pona.
I would have written "jan li sona li sona pona e sona ni: jan Sonja li mama pi toki pona" or People know and know well (the fact that) that Sonja is the inventor of toki pona.
This is either a clever extension to the canonical "e ni:" clause, or it is bad tp because there is a word in between "e" and "ni"
I take it as a restrictive relative clause -- in English terms, that is -- "People know and know well the person that is the Sonja that created tp." (last year's style book, Lord knows what this year says about this).
After excluding all phrases of the type
"mi kama poka ni la waso li kalama lon mi."
In the above sentence, I think "ni" is just modify "poka". If build this box, birds will chirp on me. When "prep + ni" is being used to set up a clause, the "ni" refers to something forward in the sentence.
I can't actually find this line on Dave's page, so I am not sure what he meant, but I suppose either "If/when I come with this..." or (corrected to 'kama lon poka ni') "If/when I come near here/this, ..." neither of which sets up a clause, but only refers to something either mentioned (earlier, presumably) or pointed to extra verba.
: (canon)lon ni
: (also idiom for "here", but that isn't the sense I'm interested in.)
sina ali li toki e pilin sina lon ni : jan li ken ala ken pona e toki pona ?
You all speak out your feelings where
can a person improve (their) toki pona?
I remember this as being another shot at how to say "about" with mentatives, but I may be misremembering. "You all express your thought about whether tp can be improved." Since it is probably from Sonja, it is sorta authoritative, but 'lon' just seems the wrong word here (Eng calque and all).
sama ni :
mi mute li ken toki e nimi sama ni: "tenpo pi selo oko tawa"
We can say the words like "time of moving ocular heat"
"time of moving eye skin" Augenblick. Apparently it is meant to be generalized -- other expressions like this one -- since otherwise the whole 'sama ni:' part is unnecessary, the quote could modify 'nimi' directly (well, 'nimi ni' is clearer).
ona li lon tomo mi la ona li awen sama ni: soweli li lon anpa soweli.
If she is in my room, she remains like an animal that is in a place of rut.
Umph! This could (prep phrase modifying noun being OK) be done directly; otherwise, this is needed and is a bit hard to reconstruct in English (in its favor as tp, I suppose). "An animals is at the bottom on/under an animal" I guess (emphasized) that it means "underdog," which could also be done without the 'ni' trick: just 'sama jan anpa' for example.
tan ni :
(lots of people use this as the "because", although that would be an adverbial clause of cause and effect and should be in the la phrase)
Everyone can know the ledgendary feats on account of the fact that
Eloto was from from the land of Alikansano and wanting that ....
* ken pali jan - I don't know what this phrase means. If it was a clause, then I would guess, pali jan ken, possible person work, ledgendary feats
This just points to the following explanation, as it clearly does. "Everybody know... because Eloto in the city Alikanaso wants..." I have to admit, the rest of the sentences looks to be a bit of a mess; I'll go look at it later. 'ken pali jan' often means "Human Right to Work" but that doesn't seem to do much here. Maybe "Human power to Achieve" but that isn't much better.
jan Posate li wile pana e ike tawa jan Otesija tan ni: jan Otesija li pakala e oka pi jan Palipimu.
Posate wants to give nastiness to Otesija on account
of Otesija blinding Palipimu.
Or, more staightforwardly, "because Odysseus destroyed Polyphemus' eye." So? Reference to an event, here described.
lipu ni li lon tawa ni: jan li ken lukin e toki sitelen lon toki pona li toki kepeken toki pona.
This page exists so that
people can see writings in toki pona and speak with toki pona.
Good, here is an example with 'tawa' of purpose. Notice that one effect of the 'ni' not noticed in this case is to take the next sentence out of the truth evaluation process (like the "that" in English). "with' in the sense of means, not accompaniment
poki ni: (couldn't find any community usages.)
mi lukin poka ni : ma li anpa e ilo poki pi lete mute.
I looked in the place that is under the refrigerator.
'poka' but 'poka ni' means "accompanying this one" just 'lon anpa pi poki lete' or however elaborated. No clause required.
kepeken ni: (couldn't find any community usages.)
mi wile pana e mani tawa jan kepeken ni : ilo li pakala e tomo.
I want to give money to the man with the machine that is demolishing houses.
This looks like a real restrictive relative clause"the man that has the machine that demolishes houses" but then just
'jan ni: jan li jo e ilo ni: ilo li pakala...' or shorter: jan pi ilo ni: ilo li pakala e tomo' No prep involved (though could use 'kepeken in place of -- or after -- 'pi')
insa ni : (not an offical prep, but suggestive of one)
mi wile tawa insa ni : mi ken lape kepeken ala kalama.
I want to go in where I can sleep without noise.
prep is 'lon insa' but I don't see this as particularly clausal 'mi wile tawa ni: mi ken lape lon ni tan kalama ala'
jan Mato li mi li jan ala pi sona toki. mi kama sona e toki ala.
I'm a fake linguist who studies fake languages.
Well, "is a linguistic non-human and learns no languages" But that does raise the issue how to distinguish "studies
languages (or a language)" from "learns a language" 'jan Mato li sina li jan pi sona toki ala. sina kama sona e toki pali (or 'pi pali jan')'