Practicality: Difference between revisions
m
Spelling mistake
Jan Ke Tami (talk | contribs) m (idsp) |
m (Spelling mistake) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 15:
</blockquote>
Tokiponists have contested this<ref>{{cite web|url=//joelthomastr.github.io/tokipona/pana-sona-ale_si|title=jan li ken pana e sona ale kepeken toki pona|trans-title=A person can give all knowledge with Toki Pona|language=tok|author={{tok|jan Telakoman}}, Gabriel Mizrahi ({{tok|jan Kapu}})|username=joelthomastr|date=2020-11-30|website=lipu pi jan Telakoman|publisher=GitHub Pages|access-date=2024-02-01}}</ref> and created
==Emergencies==
{{Needs
As of 2024, Toki Pona is probably unsuitable for emergency situations due to the low number of speakers. Navigating emergencies in the language would be most likely to come up at a Toki Pona [[gathering]]. Instructions would ideally still be given multilingually, as often already occurs with natural languages. It remains to be seen whether Toki Pona will grow enough to become relevant in emergencies.
Line 57 ⟶ 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>
<blockquote>
A person can't throw a million-dollar {{w|buzzword}} at you like {{wikt|antidisestablishmentarianism}} and expect you to know what they're talking about. They have to be curious about where you are and meet you where you're at. Instead of conversation starting with a buzzword, 'antidisestablishmentarianism,' it might start instead with, 'so how familiar are you with the Church of England?'
</blockquote>
==See also==
| |||