Kuti wrote:That is why i told to her that it could be better if she makes the rules before leaving; but Sonja is still here and it is still the "classical era"
i almost agree, but the trems "classical " and "post-classical" are appropriate here. just note that classical Chinese is definitely unfinished language (from the modern point of view) as the words "electricity", "computer", etc are not included. nowdays it is not used for communication. its area of use if in fact a fun, pretending to be an academical studyJan KoAla wrote: What I mean by that is what toki pona is, is different to everyone who uses it (a very bad thing when trying to talk about "what toki pona needs"). As a language, toki pona is unfinished.
As a game, or a toy of some sort, toki pona works just fine. This also explains why changing anything is the same as "breaking the rules", which makes the game no longer any fun.
I think it's best not to throw around words like "post-classical" as that just makes things more confusing.
we should remember that classical toki pona is not just the set of rules and words, it has some philosophy behind. you cannot have it as "finished language" with these principles. but if you abandon philosophy, then i see no reason to call it toki pona, it is something new, like Prakrits as opposed to Sanskrit.What some people want is just a finished language that can be used for anything. Other's want a game or a toy or just a fun hobby to play around with, and are content not to have toki pona be a language.
this is not toki pona philosophy, but probably your philosophy says this. however, even this may be not exactly correct as you wish to "have a duumvirate for the nonce until we get areas of influence sorted out". it does not looks like "let it alone".janKipo wrote: O)n the other hand (as noted), it is a philosophy of constant change and so supports the constantly changing language. But not, of course, a conscious, thought-out, change (as we are wont to do) but a natural development, where the bottom rises and the top subsides (whatever those are in languages). So, the philosophy says, "Let it alone, don't keep trying to draw it into some fixed framework" -- either the classical one or some new radical one.
the implication is not valid per se. moreover, tp is not "basicly Daosism", but, as sonja said "Many of these principles were inspired by Taoism, which values a simple, honest life and non-interference with the natural flow of things, as well as other spiritual paths"janSilipu wrote:If tp philosophy is basically Daoism, then this is a fair practical version (without that kooky-spookies).
it is not that important for current discussion what do i have inj mind. it is important what Sonja had:If you have something else in mind, ...
then what is your "duumvirate" for? this is how aikidave interprets your "duumvirate": If in fact, the keys of toki pona are passed onto jan Mato and jan Kipo, they should come to a consensus and resolve the open issues. it does not looks like to "give everyone a shot". but, in my opinion, the idea to "give shot" is not bad, just do it honestly: draw the line under toki pona, open a new page, write "toki Kipo" at its top, and make your shot.The point of "let it alone" is not to plan changes but give everyone a shot and see what sticks. The rest is record keeping and maybe a bit of enforcing existing rules and tendencies -- which are open to dispute, of course.
the needs i cited are not my ideas, they are taken from Knorozov, although i am not sure if the idea belongs to him. but the idea is confirmed by further development of conlangs. e.g. Omar Mubin was inspired by toki pona, but he used something 800 words for his conlang ROILA.The "needs" you cite seem to be just your ideas, not objective.
this "try" requires planning rather than "give everyone a shot".the succsess is theoretically possible, but highly unlikely. and, once again, i see no way to preseve the declared principles in this attempt. honesty is too costly to please everyoneTp is an experiment with 120 words. If it doesn't work, someone will try with 150 (or 100 different one -- the present set is odd in several ways).
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests