154
edits
mi li and sina li: Difference between revisions
Marked this version for translation
No edit summary |
(Marked this version for translation) |
||
Line 4:
<translate>
<!--T:1-->
The phrases '''{{tp|mi li}} and {{tp|sina li}}''' are generally considered to be ungrammatical. If a sentence starts with {{tp|mi}} or with {{tp|sina}} as the only word in the [[Special:MyLanguage/subject|subject]], the [[Special:MyLanguage/predicate|predicate]] immediately follows after.
==Why no {{tp|li}}?== <!--T:2-->
<!--T:3-->
Learners sometimes wonder why {{tp|li}} gets added for everything else, but not for {{tp|mi}} and {{tp|sina}}. Because the underlying confusion, or curiosity, can have different causes, there are many possible answers.
<!--T:4-->
* Because this is how the language works, and how it has worked from the very beginning. After decades, only a minority of speakers use {{tp|li}} differently, if any.
* The particle {{tp|li}} introduces a verb to a subject more complicated than only {{tp|mi}} or only {{tp|sina}}. It's commonly said that {{tp|li}} is "omitted" after {{tp|mi}} or {{tp|sina}}, or that there is a "hidden" {{tp|li}}. This could mean that Toki Pona likes to concentrate on {{tp|mi}} and {{tp|sina}} being more <em>immediate</em> subjects. They hold such importance in the language that anything else is more complex or more external to an immediate experience so that it needs an extra separation by a particle.
Line 15 ⟶ 18:
* In terms of practical benefits, omitting {{tp|li}} after {{tp|mi}} makes it less likely to be confused with {{tp|ni}}. It also makes sentences shorter and slightly more varied in terms of word distribution.
==When to add {{tp|li}} anyway== <!--T:5-->
<!--T:6-->
The relationship {{tp|li}} has to {{tp|mi}} and {{tp|sina}} is often overly shortened to "no {{tp|li}} after {{tp|mi}} or {{tp|sina}}". However, taking this abbreviated explanation at face-value can lead to confusion for learners, in some cases where the word {{tp|li}} follows {{tp|mi}} and {{tp|sina}}.
<!--T:7-->
{{tp|li}} is not added if {{tp|mi}} is the <em>only word</em> in the subject or if {{tp|sina}} is the ''only word'' in the subject. With {{tp|en}}, there are now two subjects, so {{tp|li}} is added.
Line 25 ⟶ 30:
<translate>
<!--T:8-->
{{tp|li}} follows {{tp|mi}} and {{tp|sina}} when used as modifiers. In the sentence below, {{tp|sina}} is not the subject, it is only part of the subject.
Line 31 ⟶ 37:
<translate>
<!--T:9-->
{{tp|li}} is still used if {{tp|mi}} or {{tp|sina}} are modified.
Line 37 ⟶ 44:
<translate>
===Multiple predicates=== <!--T:10-->
<!--T:11-->
{{pu}} says that when multiple predicates are applied to {{tp|mi}} or {{tp|sina}}, a new sentence should start.<ref>{{cite pu|56}}</ref>
Line 45 ⟶ 53:
<translate>
<!--T:12-->
Some speakers use a second {{tp|li}} in this case. This is referred to as "extended {{tp|li}} style" in [[Special:MyLanguage/ku|ku]].<ref group="lower-alpha">This has a parallel in Tok Pisin's particle ''{{lang|tpi|i}}'', where a second predicate to the same subject gets introduced with it.</ref>
Line 51 ⟶ 60:
<translate>
===Edge cases=== <!--T:13-->
<!--T:14-->
In some cases, speakers' styles may lead to differences in how {{tp|li}} is used. The word {{tp|[[Special:MyLanguage/a|a]]}} in sentence below is seen as applying to {{tp|mi}}, but it is a special case that leads to {{tp|li}} not factoring in because of the nature of the word {{tp|a}}.<!--vague--> However, because it is still acting similar or even the same as a modifier, speakers might also use {{tp|li}} just like with any modifier. A similar effect might happen with {{tp|kin}}.
Line 60 ⟶ 70:
<translate>
==Notes== <!--T:15-->
</translate>
Line 66 ⟶ 76:
<translate>
==References== <!--T:16-->
</translate>
| |||