kepeken e: Difference between revisions

Line 25:

Now, typically the /last/ case (that with a [[Glossary#modifier|modifier]] as the [[Glossary#head|head]] of a preposition) can be expanded thus:

:;mi pali e ni: moku li suwi.

:;mi pali e ni<nowiki>:</nowiki> moku li suwi.

::I bring this about: the food is sweet.

Line 34:

:;soweli li monsuta e mi la mi monsuta.

Unfortunately, the theoretical purity of this transformation breaks down in practice. In certain cases, it is not clear whether the The [[Glossary#ordinary values|]] of toki pona words do not allow for this degree of freedom, so the meaning of the last sentence is completely ambiguous:

Unfortunately, the theoretical purity of this transformation breaks down in practice. In certain cases, it is not clear whether the The [[Glossary#ordinary values|ordinary values]] of toki pona words do not allow for this degree of freedom, so the meaning of the last sentence is completely ambiguous:

:;soweli li monsuta e mi la mi monsuta.

Line 42:

It is not clear whether this is tale of big bad wolf or of lycanthropy, since in the first case the word is interpreted as a modifier applied to the object, and the second as a noun into which the subject is transformed. This confusion is called the ''monsutatesu'', the "monsuta test", since it is most clear with the word ''monsuta''. However, ''monsuta'' is not the only word that behaves this way. Many prepositions are similarly ambiguous, particularly when used transitively.

== Lexemes ==

In the beginning, /kepeken/ was a transitive verb. It was also a preposition. It is not the only word that straddled both categories — at certain times "poka" could act as a preposition, though {{today}} it is definitively not able to do so — but it remains as of {{today}} the most contested.

In the beginning, ''kepeken'' was a transitive verb. It was also a preposition. It is not the only word that straddled both categories — at certain times "poka" could act as a preposition, though today it is definitively not able to do so — but it remains as of today the most contested.

As a reminder, a [[preposition]] can introduce an [[indirect object]] to the [[predicate]] of a [[sentence]]:

Line 58:

:;jan lili li tawa tomo sona.

::The ~~childred~~ go to school.

::The children go to school.

The word [[kepeken]], when at the head of a predicate, is variously treated as a [[transitive verb]] or as a [[preposition]]. In terms of [[surface features]], the particle [[e]] is used by some and omitted by others:

Line 71:

Now since a transitive predicate is interpreted as making the predicate apply to the direct object of the sentence, and a prepositional phrase can head a predicate, it is possible to transitively apply a prepositional phrase to a direct object, like so:

:;jan lanpan li poki e ona li tawa tomo telo e ona.<ref>[https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wGSEiI3XlJ32YKeFRmp6U-HMKW96Ac_4/view]mijomi telo, page 3.</ref>

:;jan lanpan li poki e ona li tawa tomo telo e ona.<ref>[https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wGSEiI3XlJ32YKeFRmp6U-HMKW96Ac_4/view mijomi telo], page 3.</ref>

::The pirate put them in a cage can brought them to the boat.

Line 78:

:jan lanpan li tawa tomo telo e ona la ona li tawa tomo telo,

which holds together. Now ordinarily "tawa tomo telo" is interpreted as a ~~prespositional~~ phrase, and it is perfectly reasonably applied to a direct object here and conforms to the observations on transitivity in the previous section.

which holds together. Now ordinarily "tawa tomo telo" is interpreted as a prepositional phrase, and it is perfectly reasonably applied to a direct object here and conforms to the observations on transitivity in the previous section.

Generally, though, prepositions can also act as content words. In the sentence

Line 85:

::I watched a movie.

It is practically impossible to interpret the last word of the sentence as a preposition, rather than a [[modifier]] of the word ''sitelen''. The phrase ''mi lon e ma'' has a completely distinct flavor from ''mi lon ma''.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU9PEZ9TARs~~]jan~~ ~~Kekan San, "~~mi lon e ma."</ref> In the first, ''lon'' is a content word meaning "real, existing," and so the sentence means "I make the earth exist." The second sentence has ''lon'' as a preposition introducing ''ma'', so the sentence means, "I am in place." The presence of the particle [[e]] serves to distinguish them.

It is practically impossible to interpret the last word of the sentence as a preposition, rather than a [[modifier]] of the word ''sitelen''. The phrase ''mi lon e ma'' has a completely distinct flavor from ''mi lon ma''.<ref>jan Kekan San, "[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU9PEZ9TARs mi lon e ma]."</ref> In the first, ''lon'' is a content word meaning "real, existing," and so the sentence means "I make the earth exist." The second sentence has ''lon'' as a preposition introducing ''ma'', so the sentence means, "I am in place." The presence of the particle [[e]] serves to distinguish them.

Unfortunately, the particle [[e]] cannot appear in all contexts. A classic example, coined on {{2002-05-28}} by [[Nikita Ayzikovsy]] on the [[toki pona forums]] will suffice:

Unfortunately, the particle [[e]] cannot appear in all contexts. A classic example, coined on 2002-05-28 by [[Nikita Ayzikovsy]] on the [[toki pona forums]] will suffice:

;mi pana e tomo tawa sina.

:I give you a house. OR

:I brought your car.<ref>[http://forums.tokipona.org/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=32#p68~~]Nikita Ayzikovsky,~~ forum post</ref>

:I brought your car.<ref>Nikita Ayzikovsky, [http://forums.tokipona.org/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=32#p68 forum post].</ref>

</blockquote>

This sort of sentence is necessarily ambiguous. Since ''tawa'' could be either a modifier or a preposition, and no feature of the language enables the speaker to distinguish the ~~possibilites~~, both glosses above are equally plausible interpretations. The difference between them is usually described by saying that ''tawa'' is acting as a preposition in the former interpretation, and as a content word in the latter.

This sort of sentence is necessarily ambiguous. Since ''tawa'' could be either a modifier or a preposition, and no feature of the language enables the speaker to distinguish the possibilities, both glosses above are equally plausible interpretations. The difference between them is usually described by saying that ''tawa'' is acting as a preposition in the former interpretation, and as a content word in the latter.

== Conclusion ==

Line 107:

:mi tawa e sina la sina tawa.

Seems to set a precedent for a prepositional interpretation, unless the latter is also interpreted as a transitive and ~~intrasitive~~ verb. Since not all verbs are easily made one or the other, it is often more comfortable to analyze both cases as prepositional.

Seems to set a precedent for a prepositional interpretation, unless the latter is also interpreted as a transitive and intransitive verb. Since not all verbs are easily made one or the other, it is often more comfortable to analyze both cases as prepositional.

Unfortunately, there is no correct answer: the ambiguity in latent in toki pona itself. However, a few lines of flight appear. First: must we cling to the notion of "prepositions"? These words do generally act strangely, in that they can introduce sub-sections of a sentence; this seems to be a property restricted to the five "prepositions". On the other hand, it is not clear that this would change their meaning when made transitive: though the possibility of transitive prepositional ''phrases'' remains, the interpretation of the words ''alone'' as heads of a predicate is unclear. Perhaps in circumstances like these, the "prepositions" are all content words: