Practicality: Difference between revisions

65 bytes added ,  1 month ago
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 56:
For jargon that is relatively international, while Toki Pona's [[philosophy]] <em>prefers</em> that concepts are explained in simple language, one could [[Toki Pona is not exceptional|do as natural languages have]] and translate terms such as "{{w|HDMI cable}}" as {{tp|[[linja]] HDMI}}, for example. (See also {{sect|Names#Against names}}.) If this does not work, one would have to describe the subject or explain what it does in better detail, but this is still equally true of other languages.
 
Notably, very many such technical terms were not present in <em>any</em> languages until recently, so this seems like a flawed metric to measure a language's practicality, much less how worthwhile its existence and usage is. (For example, what is the term for "HDMI cable" in {{w|Latin}}?)
 
There is also an argument that the lack of jargon can be <em>more</em> practical. While jargon provides better {{w|information density}}, it risks not properly or fully conveying the information in the first place, limiting its practicality. The plain, transparent approach encourages sharing and building proper understanding, and discourages obfuscation tactics such as "{{w|bullshitting}}". As put by {{tok|jan Lakuse}}:<ref>{{cite roundtable|page=7}}</ref>