Discuss kepeken e

Add topic
From sona pona, the Toki Pona wiki
Revision as of 09:20, 6 February 2024 by JPeton (talk | contribs) (→‎"kepeken e" is uncommon?)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Latest comment: 5 months ago by JPeton in topic "kepeken e" is uncommon?

Very incomplete and the outbound links are all unconnected. Will clean up tomorrow. JPeton (talk) 04:11, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Can anyone find this meme I saw once on reddit? It was the Chris Pratt from Parks and Rec meme, and it said "I don't understand the fight about kepeken e and at this point I'm afraid to ask" or something similar JPeton (talk) 04:11, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

An alternative title for this article is "monsutatesu" -- should it be a redirect, or renamed? JPeton (talk) 04:11, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

In order to be taken seriously this must be peer reviewed by as many people as possible. I put it out in the hopes that it will attract interest. JPeton (talk) 04:11, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

"kepeken e" in practice[edit | edit source]

At some point, there should be a cross-community/cross-platform poll about the actual usage of "kepeken e" - I'd say that "kepeken e" currently gets completely avoided unless it's the old transitive verb usage. Jan Ke Tami (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. My sense is the same as yours in this. JPeton (talk) 21:21, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Merge with kepeken/title change[edit | edit source]

I think this is a delightful piece of argumentation and writing that very much ought to stay on the wiki. The existence of the pages kepeken and monsutatesu, however, means that its name should probably change, and that its contents should be correlated and collated with theirs. JPeton (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Against a merge.
What's a good title change? "kepeken vs kepeken e"?

its contents should be correlated and collated with theirs

I don't know what you mean by this. Jan Ke Tami (talk) 01:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Wait, maybe you're arguing that the debate around "kepeken e" is a result of monsutatesu... In that case, wouldn't it make sense to merge it with monsutatesu? Jan Ke Tami (talk) 01:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
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. JPeton (talk) 02:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
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 ale li pona. JPeton (talk) 02:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

"kepeken e" is uncommon?[edit | edit source]

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. Citrons.xyz (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree. I’ve always used kepeken e, and when reading this talk page I was flabbergasted by how rare people say it is used. Enky (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hm, ok, so 2 things.
1. I agree that sentence should not stay as it is in the article. "but it is not clear what such a construction means, nor whether it should be used" - best case this is weird to read
2. when the article talks about an uncommon construction it does not talk about kepeken e, but transitive prepositional phrases. One of the flaws of this article (see other parts of this talk page) is actually that the article isn't able to say enough about how kepeken e is used in practice. Jan Ke Tami (talk) 09:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Agreed: this should have a more careful historical analysis, since it seems that in early speakers (jan Nikita, jan Pije), kepeken was analyzed primarily as a transitive verb, i.e. e was always used whenever kepeken alone was the head of a sentence. I'd like to explore this in more detail, but I don't immediately have time for it right now. :'( JPeton (talk) 09:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply