Practicality: Difference between revisions

Line 18:

==Emergencies==

{{Needs ~~work~~|[https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/1916659-science-diagrams-that-look-like-shitposts ~~The~~ "{{tp|a}}" shark meme]~~|section~~}}

{{Needs media|[https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/1916659-science-diagrams-that-look-like-shitposts the "{{tp|a}}" shark meme]}}

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 58:

Line 57:

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.

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>

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==