Talk:Toki Pona/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Toki Pona li toki pona! [ Toki Pona is a good language! ]


Contents

[edit] General discussion of the language

Toki Pona seems to me like a linguistic form of lobotomy, combining the ideal of noble savage with the goals of Newspeak. Yuk. -- The Anome 16:34, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
Hear, hear! I think that this language might be useful as a second language, but I certainly wouldn't teach it as a first language. It is judgemental, whatever pretensions to the contrary. (Reptiles can't be "cute"?) And besides, it just isn't "detailed" enough. I certainly hope that this language does not catch on enough to have many native speakers, lest this happen to them. In another vein, I can really imagine the Eloi from The Time Machine using this language. Bryce 00:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
It's a fun language game, trying to express things in Toki Pona, especially things Sonja doesn't approve of. And it's an interesting exercise in minimal grammar, as well. --Jim Henry | Talk 14:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
"...teach it as a first language" ???
As for me, Toki Pona is a very interesting language, worth of studying and thinking in. The most simple sentenses can be ultimately full of meaning and beautiful at once - that is the feature I Love about Chinese and Japanese. Toki Pona's ways are very natural and that brings up a great deal of respect to its creator. Just wonder: how was it created? --Amakuha 14:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is a recent message on "Toki Pona Myths" (in English) from the Toki Pona Yahoo! group that addresses some of the issues we've discussed here (is the language really "Taoist", "primitive", necessarily ambiguous, a test of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis...?). --Jim Henry | Talk 04:46, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Grammar

Now that it seems that the Toki Pona article will definitely stay, I am interested in improving the Backus-Naur syntax overview for the language that i worked on a several months ago. Does anyone see anything I may have left out, or have any other suggestions/questions about the overview? Intangir 20:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I think a BNF syntax of Toki Pona would be excessive detail for a Wikipedia article. But such an in-depth study would be fitting for the Conlang Wikicity. --Jim Henry | Talk 14:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Dialects"?

Damian Yerrick described Kisa's latest description of the language as "the standard dialect" in an edit which Jerzy then reverted. I think Jerzy reversion was probably correct although not perhaps for the reasons he gave in his edit comment. Can anyone describe consistent dialectical differences between the Toki Pona used in, say, the mailing list vs. the Wikicity? The latest official version by Kisa is not a dialect unless someone speaks it, which I doubt; Kisa has never published full lessons based on the latest revisions, so everyone who learns the language does so by studying one or more of the unofficial series of lessons (there are lessons in German, Esperanto, French, Catalan and Russian, all based more or less on Pije's English lessons). --Jim Henry | Talk 14:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Languages of Canada

I don't think this should be included, as this is a conlang originating in Canada and not (AFAIK) having any other connection to there. The rest of that category consists entirely of French and English dialects and Aboriginal languages. Comments? ~~ N (t/c) 22:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Calling Toki Pona a language of Canada make as much sense as calling all of Tolkien's languages "Languages of England". And Klingon a "Language of the USA". Not a good idea! --IJzeren Jan 02:08, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
But it's a Canadian cultural product as much as a Canadian film or a Canadian song, and there's just as much reason to include it in a Canadian category.
Anyway, I've created Category:Canadian constructed languages as a child of Category:Languages of Canada and Category:Constructed languages and moved Toki Pona there instead; I've moved Blissymbols there also. Samaritan 12:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, I can't stop you, but frankly, I think that is a very bad idea. You are of course right, it is a Canadian cultural product. But in the case of conlangs it rarely matters much where the creator comes from. Important is the question what kind of conlang it is: an artistic language, an IAL, a personal language, a stealth language... and that must be covered properly by the subcategorisies of Category:Constructed languages. But who is really interested in subcategories according to country? In my opinion, this is a typical example of overcategorisation. If you really want to go on with that, you should as well create similar categories for all other conlangs covered here, all belonging to a Category:Conlangs according to the nationality of their creators. But obviously, nobody really needs that.
Besides, by making Category:Canadian constructed languages a child of Category:Languages of Canada, you do essentially the same as when you add the article to it directly. And even if Toki Pona is a Canadian cultural product, it is NOT a language of Canada.
It's another story when the creator of the language him/herself has an article; then of course it's fine to categorise the person under, say, Category:Canadian people. --IJzeren Jan 13:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
...I see your point. I'll request comment on the Canadian notice board. If this is the general sentiment, we can remove it from Category:Languages of Canada (and move Blissymbols back up and delete Category:Canadian constructed languages). In that case *brainstorm!* I'd add it to Category:Canadian literature on the cultural product grounds... Samaritan 13:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
That solution is IMO slightly better, but still unsatisfactory. The point is, I don't think it matters at all that Toki Pona is a Canadian product. There are só many items that are grouped according to other criteria than nationality! Look at the List of fictional countries: would it matter anything that Fictional Country A was devised by someone from Real Country C; in other words, would we get categories like Category:Fictional countries created by Belgians? As far as I am concerned, the Canadian-ness of Toki Pona is already sufficiently covered in the article about Sonja Elen Kisa. --IJzeren Jan 03:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Toki_Pona#Colors

hello,

we at ca:Toki pona are using this image to illustrate colors in toki pona. can someone check it to see if it is correct? thanks!

--ArinArin 11:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I made a similar diagram in an old article I had written about the language. When I pointed out that laso was much bigger than jelo in the original conception, Sonja moved the border between laso and jelo to include more of green, resulting in this colorwheel diagram. --jan Tepo | o toki tawa mi

[edit] See also

I added Esperanto, because the connection seemed logical. If you guys don't like it, go ahead and expunge it.--Rockero 05:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BNF for the grammar?

I have my doubts whether it really makes sense to use a BNF diagram to explain Toki Pona's grammar. I mean, how many people who are not computer geeks will be able to make heads or tails of it? To the rest, it will just make Toki Pona appear more arcane than it already is.

Can we delete it? -- Syzygy 08:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that BNF is a rather arcane, and precisely defining the grammar is definitely not necessary in an encyclopedia. The primary advantage of having the grammar overview is just to demonstrate how simple the grammar is for Toki Pona. Toki Pona is notable because it is built around simplicity, and a ~10 line BNF grammar helps demonstrate this to the geeks who do happen to know BNF. Also, as you mention, Toki Pona is itself pretty arcane; we might expect those that might be interested in this fairly obscure language to know some of the tools linguists use to describe language. Intangir 19:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
P.S. I am horribly biased since I'm the one who revised the syntax diagram to it's current state. =P
I still fear the BNF will deter those who might be interested in Toki Pona, but who have no idea what a BNF is supposed to be. Probably, somebody should summarize the essential grammar a bit more plainly... perhaps somebody who lately has acquainted himself with the language somehow... I get a feeling I know who this person might turn out to be... ;-) -- Syzygy 08:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Total speakers

"3 fluent" ? that's very unlikely... I personally know 3 fluent speakers (myself included), with whom I was having regular (fluent) conversations, and I don't know Sonja nor Pije... Its seems there's someone trying to play the language down... I'd be suprised if there's less than 30 fluent speakers. Oyd11 21:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I added that figure, but I can no longer find the reference. Fluency is rather difficult to define with a conlang, only a very few have developed sufficently to allow fluency. Would you say that thirty people know just everything there is to know about the language? --Gareth Hughes 22:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm... "everything there is to know about the language", would be a bit more difficult to define than *fluency*, I really don't get what that could mean... seriously. I think fluency would be being able to hold conversations, as in any non-con-lang, ie, being able to refer to the language as a reflex so to say. I would guess thirty as a minimum, just out of what I've seen on IRC. I'd guess actually much higher, but that's pure speculation. I am curious.
There was a discussion about this on the AUXLANG mailing list a little while ago, and I analyzed the recent traffic on the Yahoo groups tokipona mailing list to see what I could find that way. There were 11 different people (or at least 11 unique email addresses) posting in Toki Pona during the last 3 months, and that doesn't include several known fluent speakers (such as Sonja and jan Pije); there are other people active on IRC and the Toki Pona Wikicity who have never been active on the mailing list. How many of those who can read and write well in TP can speak it fluently is unknown, but we can safely say that >15 and probably >20 can read and write it fluently. --Jim Henry 22:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I could add that nearly all of the traffic on the mailing list (except for a couple of spams) was in Toki Pona during the period I looked at (Oct 1 - Dec 7); there was one message in Esperanto, and a few messages in Toki Pona with footnotes or parenthetical remarks in English, French, and/or German. --Jim Henry | [[User talk:Jim Henry|Talk]] 22:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Transliteration of foreign words/names

Does it exist any official standard of transliterating IPA into Toki Pona? Would be useful in case one wanted to write some text with a name or something. 81.232.72.53 23:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

See jan Pije's "Tokiponization Guidelines". --]] | [[User talk:Jim Henry|Talk 16:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, thank you, although I think having two different words for "God" and "Allah" will likely lead to a mind-bendingly complex conlang... 81.232.72.53 00:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
The word for god is jan sewi (person + high). The word for monotheistic god is probably jan sewi taso (person + high + sole). The word jan sewi Ila means to me roughly "God as conceived in the tradition of Islam". Put another way: with its 99 Names of God, is Arabic mindbendingly complex? --Damian Yerrick (☎) 03:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply, this is an excerpt from the Tokiponization Guidelines referred to:
 If necessary, you may want to tweak a word to avoid a potentially misleading homonym. 
(Example: Allah becomes jan sewi Ila, not jan sewi Alano God). 
If possible, use a related word in the source language rather than introducing an arbitrary change. 
(In Arabic, Allah actually means the God, whereas Illah means God.)
Well, these 99 names seem to be descriptions mostly, not unique words. A better example is the English words God, Æsir, Deva, Kami etc. which all denote different types of gods. 2nd, the phrase "mindbendingly complex" was an ironic joke, and a comment on how a "taoist" conlang really shouldn't need to differ between the Christian and the Muslim god, to begin with. I used the phrase, solely because we were discussing Toki Pona here.惑乱 分からん 19:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If it wasn't deleted it should state notability

I mean, where is this known? In which circles/country/...? From where are the supossed speakers? --euyyn 03:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It's spoken by a few dozen people scattered around in North America and Europe. If there are speakers in Africa, Asia etc. I don't know about them, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn of them. More specifically I know of speakers from the U.S., Canada, France, Spain, Germany, and the Czech Republic who are or have been active on the Toki Pona Yahoo Groups mailing list, and there are people on the TP Wikia and/or IRC who aren't on the mailing list. --Jim Henry 15:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] <i lang="x-tokipona">

Hyenaste wrote as the summary of this edit:

Phonology - not even sure what these tags do...

This refers to codes like <i lang="x-tokipona">ijo</i>. This marks the word ijo as being in Toki Pona, where x-tokipona is an RFC 3066 language tag. If you have Mozilla Firefox or Firefox Community Edition, you can bring up the context menu on a word and choose Properties to see its language. Try it here:

  • ona li pona! (produces "Text language: Tokipona")
  • All is well! (produces "Text language: English")

Or a multilingual HTML screen reader can pick up on the lang attribute and pronounce phrases in Toki Pona with the appropriate rules. --jan Tepo 00:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

How interesting! Thanks for the explanation. Hyenaste (tell) 00:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
One more thing: RFC 3066 uses x- codes only for those languages that don't have a unique ISO 639-1 or ISO 639-2 short code. For example, lang="nl" not lang="x-dutch". --Damian Yerrick (☎) 14:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah ok, I'll consult List of ISO 639-1 codes then if I'm unsure. Hyenaste (tell) 16:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia

I've heard legends of a Toki Pona Wikipedia, that was lost in the sands of time, are these merely fables or is it true?Cameron Nedland 20:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

There used to be one at tokipona:Main Page, but it was moved out of Wikipedia into Wikia at [1]. Hyenaste (tell) 21:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, thanks.Cameron Nedland 12:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Why was it moved? --fudo (questions?) 18:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] notability?

Do you really need to put Ms. Kisa's personal history on this page? But it might become more notable if and when she becomes famous for more than just one conlang. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 04:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)