Practicality: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 2:
[[File:RobWords Toki Pona video comments.png|250px|thumb|Analysis of first 1000 top-level comments on the video about Toki Pona by YouTuber Rob Watts (RobWords), demonstrating non-speakers' views of the practicality of the language]]
The '''practicality''' of [[Toki Pona]] for real-world use is debated, as it is primarily a {{w|Philosophical language|philosophical}} {{w|artistic language}}. This extends to whether lack of fitness for various use cases would be a shortcoming of Toki Pona, thus devaluing it, or simply outside of its design goals.
Often, when people are introduced to the language, they voice concerns about Toki Pona being used in {{w|emergencies}}, or otherwise precise, risky, or jargon-heavy situations such as {{w|medical examination}}s.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240202121235/https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/301380012156911616/1202926900633407529/robwordscomments.png|title=Stats from the 1000 first top-level comments on Robwords' video on Toki Pona|author={{tok|jan Sepulon}}|username=|date=2024-02-02|website=Discord|access-date=2024-02-02}}</ref> Suffice it to say that a niche hobby {{w|constructed language}} is not being used in such applications, and most [[Tokiponist]]s are not promoting it for such usage.
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==
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>
| |||