Talk:kepeken e: Difference between revisions
I think "kepeken e" is valid.
(→Merge with kepeken/title change: Reply) |
Citrons.xyz (talk | contribs) (I think "kepeken e" is valid.) |
||
Line 22:
::I think what I mean is that this page and [[monsutatesu]] should merge and that [[kepeken]] should point to the newly merged page as a "see more." But I don't know whether this is exactly the same as the [[monsutatesu]] or not. I think it is, but I'm decidedly on one of the sides of the debate and have my own point of view here; I'd totally believe that someone else might consider them to be distinct phenomena. I'd have to investigate both pages to see whether it's feasible. [[User:JPeton|JPeton]] ([[User talk:JPeton|talk]]) 02:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
:::I just re-read [[monsutatesu]] and I think that [[kepeken e]] covers the specific case where the monsutatesu is applied to prepositions. As such I think it could be made a section of [[monsutatesu]], something like '''Monsutatesu and prepositions'''. Better, this could also be part of the as-yet-unmade page [[prepositions]]. I think that last is my favorite option: refactor this page into a page on prepositions, pointing out (my opinion that) the [[kepeken e]] case is an example of [[monsutatesu]], but not the only one. Then the pages in the category prepositions would all be implicitly connected to this information and {{tp|ale li pona.}} [[User:JPeton|JPeton]] ([[User talk:JPeton|talk]]) 02:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
== "kepeken e" is uncommon? ==
I have not participated in a toki pona community for a while, but I have spoken it for years. "kepeken e" has never struck me as an odd construction, and I did not think it to be uncommon. I even use it myself, perhaps with comparable frequency with solely using kepeken. the community may have changed since I participated, but I question the assertion that "it is not clear what such a construction means, nor whether it should be used".
sure, people have always argued about it. many people have opinions about what toki pona's semantics should or shouldn't be. it's not pu, but many common features aren't. if the claim is that it isn't commonly understood, maybe there should be something to support that.
in my opinion, it has a technically ambiguous meaning but that which is clarified by context; it is quite comparable to "moku" in this regard, for instance.
the article itself cites a source which still teaches the construction. I would hardly call it confusing or obscure. [[User:Citrons.xyz|Citrons.xyz]] ([[User talk:Citrons.xyz|talk]]) 19:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
| |||