Topic: A language with only 123 words, meant for simple communication, and for thinking in a new way.
Anonymous A started this discussion 15 years ago #1,339
Toki Pona
> What is Toki Pona?
> A simple language
> Toki Pona is a simple language designed to express the most, using the least. The entire language has only 123 words and 14 sounds. The grammar, although different from English, is very regular and easy to learn.
> What is Toki Pona?
> A simple language
> Toki Pona is a simple language designed to express the most, using the least. The entire language has only 123 words and 14 sounds. The grammar, although different from English, is very regular and easy to learn.
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later[^] [v] #25,847
Where do they speak this?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 6 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #25,854
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 9 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #25,861
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #25,865
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
Really? Why did she learn it? My girlfriend can speak some Klingon.
Really? Why did she learn it? My girlfriend can speak some Klingon.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #25,869
@25,861 (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
> I was just trying to get you to talk about it more.
Oh, okay. It's not entirely meant for communication. Like Lojban it's testing the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis that language changes the way we think about things, and that changing someone's language can help them see things.
For example, saying bad friend in Toki Pona is saying "Bad Good Person" which highlights a contradiction. Bad friend doesn't make much sense, and seeing this may get you to think about why you would call someone who you dislike a friend. This is just one example.
> This reminds me of Esperanto.
Both are artificial, but Esperanto is attempting to be an international language that can be used for anything from business, science, to diplomacy. Toki Pona is a bad choice for any, as it is very ambiguous and could cause confusion. It might be well suited as an international pidgin language to help people communicate very basic concepts.
> I was just trying to get you to talk about it more.
Oh, okay. It's not entirely meant for communication. Like Lojban it's testing the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis that language changes the way we think about things, and that changing someone's language can help them see things.
For example, saying bad friend in Toki Pona is saying "Bad Good Person" which highlights a contradiction. Bad friend doesn't make much sense, and seeing this may get you to think about why you would call someone who you dislike a friend. This is just one example.
> This reminds me of Esperanto.
Both are artificial, but Esperanto is attempting to be an international language that can be used for anything from business, science, to diplomacy. Toki Pona is a bad choice for any, as it is very ambiguous and could cause confusion. It might be well suited as an international pidgin language to help people communicate very basic concepts.
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic replied with this 15 years ago, 7 seconds later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #25,870
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
I never knew that. Why is it so popular there?
I never knew that. Why is it so popular there?
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 15 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #25,874
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic triple-posted this 15 years ago, 46 seconds later, 16 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #25,876
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
That's really cool. What was the justification for this?
That's really cool. What was the justification for this?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 56 seconds later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #25,879
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
China has 400,000 Esperanto speakers. China has an all Esperanto news channel paid for by the government. I hear they had an Esperanto convention that broke records for the most people meeting up in China for any event.
China has 400,000 Esperanto speakers. China has an all Esperanto news channel paid for by the government. I hear they had an Esperanto convention that broke records for the most people meeting up in China for any event.
(Edited 35 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #25,881
@25,874 (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
Perhaps somewhat if both parties spoke it, but it's not likely to happen. Any communication will most likely be between friends for the moment.
Perhaps somewhat if both parties spoke it, but it's not likely to happen. Any communication will most likely be between friends for the moment.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 48 seconds later, 19 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #25,883
This is doubleplus ungood
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 26 seconds later, 20 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #25,885
@25,876 (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
Esperanto is very easy to learn, which could improve literacy and free up the time it would take to learn Chinese for something else. It's a much better language than natural languages in many ways.
Esperanto is very easy to learn, which could improve literacy and free up the time it would take to learn Chinese for something else. It's a much better language than natural languages in many ways.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 37 seconds later, 20 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #25,887
@25,883 (D)
Lol, got the reference. Did you know George Orwell spent some time in an Esperanto-only household, and that's where he got the idea for his book?
Lol, got the reference. Did you know George Orwell spent some time in an Esperanto-only household, and that's where he got the idea for his book?
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #25,889
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 24 seconds later, 22 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #25,890
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
I really wish they would use an alphabet, though. It would make everything so much easier.
I really wish they would use an alphabet, though. It would make everything so much easier.
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic replied with this 15 years ago, 13 seconds later, 22 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #25,892
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic double-posted this 15 years ago, 43 seconds later, 23 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #25,895
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
You saw it?! What was the storyline?
You saw it?! What was the storyline?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 11 seconds later, 23 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #25,896
@25,889 (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
Please try to forget that, Esperanto has a hard enough time getting by as it is.
Please try to forget that, Esperanto has a hard enough time getting by as it is.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 24 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #25,902
@25,892 (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
For changing the way people think, and perhaps being a way to obfuscate speech among people that do know it. It has the potential as an international pidgin language, as it takes only a few days to learn, but it's new and so that's not going to happen anytime soon.
For changing the way people think, and perhaps being a way to obfuscate speech among people that do know it. It has the potential as an international pidgin language, as it takes only a few days to learn, but it's new and so that's not going to happen anytime soon.
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 15 years ago, 32 seconds later, 25 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #25,904
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
An alphabet is still much easier to learn, instead of memorizing a character for every word.
An alphabet is still much easier to learn, instead of memorizing a character for every word.
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 26 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #25,909
Walrus Johnson !!nA4vUO/nd joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 27 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #25,914
@previous (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
They may only have 123 single words, but they still have compound words for all other things. So you would still have to learn hundreds of thousands of compound words.
They may only have 123 single words, but they still have compound words for all other things. So you would still have to learn hundreds of thousands of compound words.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 18 seconds later, 28 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #25,916
@25,909 (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
What do you mean by positive?
It's definitely very simple. I think the guy that invented it is a Toaist or something, and tried to apply the principles of taoism to language.
What do you mean by positive?
It's definitely very simple. I think the guy that invented it is a Toaist or something, and tried to apply the principles of taoism to language.
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic replied with this 15 years ago, 26 seconds later, 28 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #25,918
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic double-posted this 15 years ago, 40 seconds later, 29 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #25,920
Walrus Johnson !!nA4vUO/nd replied with this 15 years ago, 37 seconds later, 29 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #25,922
@25,918 (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
No. There are certain things that no language can avoid, among them an enormous vocabulary, speaking it, understanding it spoken, grammar, etc. There is no real way to simplify languages. All languages have simple parts, and complex parts, not because people want to make them complex, but because there seems to be no other way to express all of the things that humans can express.
No. There are certain things that no language can avoid, among them an enormous vocabulary, speaking it, understanding it spoken, grammar, etc. There is no real way to simplify languages. All languages have simple parts, and complex parts, not because people want to make them complex, but because there seems to be no other way to express all of the things that humans can express.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 31 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #25,925
@25,914 (Walrus Johnson !!nA4vUO/nd)
No, you don't, because once you get the 123 down you can understand the "compound words" better.
> To form a more complex meaning, you can easily combine more basic words.
> alcohol "crazy water"
> friend "good person"
> geology "earth knowledge"
> girl "little woman"
> happy "feel good"
> teach "give knowledge"
It's all intuitive. The idea is that no two word combinations have a set meaning, so learning the combinations would be counter-intuitive. You are supposed to use context, and open meanings with the language.
No, you don't, because once you get the 123 down you can understand the "compound words" better.
> To form a more complex meaning, you can easily combine more basic words.
> alcohol "crazy water"
> friend "good person"
> geology "earth knowledge"
> girl "little woman"
> happy "feel good"
> teach "give knowledge"
It's all intuitive. The idea is that no two word combinations have a set meaning, so learning the combinations would be counter-intuitive. You are supposed to use context, and open meanings with the language.
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic replied with this 15 years ago, 34 seconds later, 31 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #25,926
Walrus Johnson !!nA4vUO/nd replied with this 15 years ago, 27 seconds later, 32 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #25,928
@25,925 (A)
Not true. For example, the word for alcohol is "crazy-water." But if you said "fire-water" instead, it is wrong. You still have to memorize a specific speech pattern for a specific meaning. Also, he says that one word can have an enormous range of meaning, which only serves to create enormous ambiguity.
Not true. For example, the word for alcohol is "crazy-water." But if you said "fire-water" instead, it is wrong. You still have to memorize a specific speech pattern for a specific meaning. Also, he says that one word can have an enormous range of meaning, which only serves to create enormous ambiguity.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 33 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #25,930
@25,918 (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
It's not made to be a competitor to English, though. Neither is Lojban, it's supposed to change the way you think. Neither is Klingon which is made for artistic reasons, and for expressing a very limited amount- Klingon culture.
Esperanto is an example of an artificial language that is a competitor to English.
It's not made to be a competitor to English, though. Neither is Lojban, it's supposed to change the way you think. Neither is Klingon which is made for artistic reasons, and for expressing a very limited amount- Klingon culture.
Esperanto is an example of an artificial language that is a competitor to English.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 34 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #25,933
@25,928 (Walrus Johnson !!nA4vUO/nd)
> Not true. For example, the word for alcohol is "crazy-water." But if you said "fire-water" instead, it is wrong.
Says who? Perhaps if you are trying it for the first time, and it burns that is what you will call it.
> Also, he says that one word can have an enormous range of meaning, which only serves to create enormous ambiguity.
That's the point!
> Not true. For example, the word for alcohol is "crazy-water." But if you said "fire-water" instead, it is wrong.
Says who? Perhaps if you are trying it for the first time, and it burns that is what you will call it.
> Also, he says that one word can have an enormous range of meaning, which only serves to create enormous ambiguity.
That's the point!
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 35 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #25,942
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
If you are saying you like someone, or saying they are a friend, it's all the same in Toki Pona. If you are vouching for someone perhaps you will say they are a good person. It's not made to be precise about these things.
If you are saying you like someone, or saying they are a friend, it's all the same in Toki Pona. If you are vouching for someone perhaps you will say they are a good person. It's not made to be precise about these things.
Walrus Johnson !!nA4vUO/nd replied with this 15 years ago, 1 second later, 35 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #25,943
@25,933 (A)
Then if everyone calls it something different, how would they understand each other? This is a problem that no language can bypass. As for ambiguity, if I decide to call alcohol "real fire," but there is an actual real fire burning, how would you know what I was talking about? What if someone calls alcohol "piss-maker?" What would that mean to someone who thinks of it as "crazy-water?" See what I mean?
Then if everyone calls it something different, how would they understand each other? This is a problem that no language can bypass. As for ambiguity, if I decide to call alcohol "real fire," but there is an actual real fire burning, how would you know what I was talking about? What if someone calls alcohol "piss-maker?" What would that mean to someone who thinks of it as "crazy-water?" See what I mean?
Walrus Johnson !!nA4vUO/nd double-posted this 15 years ago, 59 seconds later, 36 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #25,944
@25,942 (A)
Then it is not very useful, if it is not very specific.
"That man is a good person."
"Oh, he is your good person?"
"No, I mean he is a good person."
"Do you mean a good person, or a good person?"
"What the hell are you talking about?"
Then it is not very useful, if it is not very specific.
"That man is a good person."
"Oh, he is your good person?"
"No, I mean he is a good person."
"Do you mean a good person, or a good person?"
"What the hell are you talking about?"
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 44 seconds later, 37 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #25,945
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
You don't recreate the language, the meaning is always broad. You are criticizing it as if it's supposed to be precise, but it's not.
You don't recreate the language, the meaning is always broad. You are criticizing it as if it's supposed to be precise, but it's not.
Walrus Johnson !!nA4vUO/nd replied with this 15 years ago, 52 seconds later, 38 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #25,947
@previous (A)
Ok, let's try a conversation. I'll start.
Today happy maker place, I take happy maker. I happy. Good person give happy maker. You take happy maker?
Ok, reply please.
Ok, let's try a conversation. I'll start.
Today happy maker place, I take happy maker. I happy. Good person give happy maker. You take happy maker?
Ok, reply please.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 44 seconds later, 39 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #25,948
@25,944 (Walrus Johnson !!nA4vUO/nd)
If you someone is a good person, you call them that. If they are your friend, you call them a good person.
If you someone is a good person, you call them that. If they are your friend, you call them a good person.
Walrus Johnson !!nA4vUO/nd replied with this 15 years ago, 50 seconds later, 40 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #25,951
@previous (A)
Today happy maker place, I take happy maker. I happy. Good person give happy maker. You take happy maker?
Today happy maker place, I take happy maker. I happy. Good person give happy maker. You take happy maker?
Walrus Johnson !!nA4vUO/nd double-posted this 15 years ago, 56 seconds later, 41 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #25,954
Walrus Johnson !!nA4vUO/nd triple-posted this 15 years ago, 25 seconds later, 41 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #25,955
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
Happy maker not good person. Not good person. No baby happy maker. I take happy maker. Happy maker hot. You take happy maker?
Happy maker not good person. Not good person. No baby happy maker. I take happy maker. Happy maker hot. You take happy maker?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 42 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #25,957
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
Not here. This isn't made for day-to-day conversation, it's made for thinking about concepts in a new way, and perhaps talking to someone who speaks another language than you to communicate simple things.
If you want something precise you could use the language you already know, but then you are thinking in the same fashion, and people can't learn this language in a matter of days.
Not here. This isn't made for day-to-day conversation, it's made for thinking about concepts in a new way, and perhaps talking to someone who speaks another language than you to communicate simple things.
If you want something precise you could use the language you already know, but then you are thinking in the same fashion, and people can't learn this language in a matter of days.
Walrus Johnson !!nA4vUO/nd replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 43 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #25,962
@previous (A)
You not take happy maker? No good person you! You good person no good person! Happy maker!
You not take happy maker? No good person you! You good person no good person! Happy maker!
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 12 seconds later, 44 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #25,963
@25,954 (Walrus Johnson !!nA4vUO/nd)
I lol'd, but IDK. Go to the site, read about it, ask someone on the forums that have actually learned it and speak it- they might know better. I just brought it up because it's an interesting idea.
I lol'd, but IDK. Go to the site, read about it, ask someone on the forums that have actually learned it and speak it- they might know better. I just brought it up because it's an interesting idea.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 seconds later, 44 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #25,964
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
It's not what?
It's not what?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 21 seconds later, 44 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #25,965
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
> People can't learn this language because it is not___.
Fill in the blank?
> People can't learn this language because it is not
Fill in the blank?
Walrus Johnson !!nA4vUO/nd replied with this 15 years ago, 28 seconds later, 44 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #25,966
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 46 seconds later, 45 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #25,967
@25,962 (Walrus Johnson !!nA4vUO/nd)
http://forums.tokipona.org/
Talk to them about it. I'm sure they can answer better than I.
http://forums.tokipona.org/
Talk to them about it. I'm sure they can answer better than I.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 46 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #25,969
@25,966 (Walrus Johnson !!nA4vUO/nd)
On the forums, and IRC people seem to have been able to communicate ideas well enough. If you did meet someone who only shared this language with you, it would certainly help a lot.
On the forums, and IRC people seem to have been able to communicate ideas well enough. If you did meet someone who only shared this language with you, it would certainly help a lot.
Walrus Johnson !!nA4vUO/nd replied with this 15 years ago, 22 seconds later, 47 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #25,970
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 52 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #25,986
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
That's omission, not ambiguity.
That's omission, not ambiguity.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #26,005
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
Get out a dictionary and look up those two words.
Get out a dictionary and look up those two words.
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 15 years ago, 20 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #26,077
For the people complaining about the ambiguity, this is how the author explains it:
> Since Toki Pona reduces communication to its most basic units, Toki Pona words are often vague and can have many different translations in English. The word toki, for example, can mean talk, speak, say, communication or language. Of course all these concepts go back to the same fundamental idea, and that is why they are united under one Toki Pona word.
> Because of this, as a speaker, you rely a lot on context to interpret what is going on. You become connected to the world around you. Instead of detaching yourself from the direct experience of life with abstract and complex concepts, you learn to listen to people and directly connect to your surroundings.
> Since Toki Pona reduces communication to its most basic units, Toki Pona words are often vague and can have many different translations in English. The word toki, for example, can mean talk, speak, say, communication or language. Of course all these concepts go back to the same fundamental idea, and that is why they are united under one Toki Pona word.
> Because of this, as a speaker, you rely a lot on context to interpret what is going on. You become connected to the world around you. Instead of detaching yourself from the direct experience of life with abstract and complex concepts, you learn to listen to people and directly connect to your surroundings.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 13 hours later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #27,437
Mmmmm delicious eels trolling
Nega !34Kas0OdzM joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 22 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #27,446
I read a few things about that.
The concept is intriguing if you can past the initial weirdness. :3
Also, I prefer Interlingua, in spite, or maybe because of its Eurocentrism.
The concept is intriguing if you can past the initial weirdness. :3
Also, I prefer Interlingua, in spite, or maybe because of its Eurocentrism.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 hours later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #27,572
I don't think it's possible to express yourself eloquently with such a simple language, despite their statement that it's designed to "express the most, using the least." Just look at a few of the first examples:
> alcohol "crazy water"
What if the water just looks crazy or tastes crazy but isn't alcoholic? Can't that cause confusion? And isn't it easier to just say "alcohol?" And what about rubbing alcohol or denatured ethyl alcohol that's designed for fuel or other uses. We can't really call that "crazy water."
> friend "good person
Do we really need to eliminate a concept as simple as friend and replace it with "good person"? What if I just want to say that someone is a good person but I don't really know them? What if I just want to say that I'm a good person but not make the audacious jump to friend. What if a friend has done something bad and I can't really call them a good person but still wish to call them a friend?
> geology "earth knowledge"
Earth knowledge, once again, can mean too many different things. How do we distinguish between someone who studies rocks and fossil fuels and someone who is knowledgeable about terrains and mountains.
> girl "little woman"
What if there's an woman who is small and want to call her a little woman without calling her a girl? I can think of a dozen other problems with this one.
> happy "feel good"
Once you've broken down something as simple as happy into something as ambiguous as "feel good" I don't know where to begin to tell you what's wrong with this.
You probably think I'm way over-analyzing this, but I think of it like this: there are very few words that are perfect synonyms. There are many that come very close, but they almost always have distinct contextual differences for the purpose of communicating very specific ideas. Any time you try to eliminate words for the sake of keeping things simple, you sacrifice how deeply you can communicate. It's like 1984. (Double plus good :) Derp)
Now I realize, as mentioned here @25,869 (A) that it's meant to be a thought experiment in how you think and not actually meant for communication. Part of the point of it is to demonstrate the problems I mentioned above. I disagree with it's "meaning of life" purpose though, because I do not believe you can achieve enlightenment by simplifying your thoughts or thought processes. Some things are complicated for a reason, and trying to force them into simple terms, I believe, can actually be harmful.
> alcohol "crazy water"
What if the water just looks crazy or tastes crazy but isn't alcoholic? Can't that cause confusion? And isn't it easier to just say "alcohol?" And what about rubbing alcohol or denatured ethyl alcohol that's designed for fuel or other uses. We can't really call that "crazy water."
> friend "good person
Do we really need to eliminate a concept as simple as friend and replace it with "good person"? What if I just want to say that someone is a good person but I don't really know them? What if I just want to say that I'm a good person but not make the audacious jump to friend. What if a friend has done something bad and I can't really call them a good person but still wish to call them a friend?
> geology "earth knowledge"
Earth knowledge, once again, can mean too many different things. How do we distinguish between someone who studies rocks and fossil fuels and someone who is knowledgeable about terrains and mountains.
> girl "little woman"
What if there's an woman who is small and want to call her a little woman without calling her a girl? I can think of a dozen other problems with this one.
> happy "feel good"
Once you've broken down something as simple as happy into something as ambiguous as "feel good" I don't know where to begin to tell you what's wrong with this.
You probably think I'm way over-analyzing this, but I think of it like this: there are very few words that are perfect synonyms. There are many that come very close, but they almost always have distinct contextual differences for the purpose of communicating very specific ideas. Any time you try to eliminate words for the sake of keeping things simple, you sacrifice how deeply you can communicate. It's like 1984. (Double plus good :) Derp)
Now I realize, as mentioned here @25,869 (A) that it's meant to be a thought experiment in how you think and not actually meant for communication. Part of the point of it is to demonstrate the problems I mentioned above. I disagree with it's "meaning of life" purpose though, because I do not believe you can achieve enlightenment by simplifying your thoughts or thought processes. Some things are complicated for a reason, and trying to force them into simple terms, I believe, can actually be harmful.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 double-posted this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #27,577
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #27,581
Lol did you even read the op before you posted? @27,572 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #27,583
@27,572 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
tl;dr and the irony that comes with it
Nah, you raise points that would be relevant if it was supposed to be a major language. A lot can also be spoken without being spoken, using facial expression and tone. Context can also add a lot of meaning...
tl;dr and the irony that comes with it
Nah, you raise points that would be relevant if it was supposed to be a major language. A lot can also be spoken without being spoken, using facial expression and tone. Context can also add a lot of meaning...
Nega !34Kas0OdzM replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #27,587
@27,572 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Yah, apparently the point of the whole exercise IS the ambiguity with the implied goal of increasing the amounts of subtext in a single sentence to truly astronomical levels, at least that's what I have been able to glean from the guy's own statements.
He probably believed in Telepathy...
Yah, apparently the point of the whole exercise IS the ambiguity with the implied goal of increasing the amounts of subtext in a single sentence to truly astronomical levels, at least that's what I have been able to glean from the guy's own statements.
He probably believed in Telepathy...
(Edited 5 minutes later.)
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #27,593
@27,581 (G)
@27,583 (Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6)
I pointed out the I recognized that it's not meant to be a major language. I read more than the OP, and if you actually read my whole post, you'd see that. I was pointing out what I got out of the thought experiment that it's supposed to be so far. I swear I feel like I'm always repeating myself with my posts. Just read what I wrote the first time. Not skim through it, make assumptions about what I'm trying to say and throw in your own interpretation. Try reading and thinking critically.
@27,583 (Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6)
I pointed out the I recognized that it's not meant to be a major language. I read more than the OP, and if you actually read my whole post, you'd see that. I was pointing out what I got out of the thought experiment that it's supposed to be so far. I swear I feel like I'm always repeating myself with my posts. Just read what I wrote the first time. Not skim through it, make assumptions about what I'm trying to say and throw in your own interpretation. Try reading and thinking critically.
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #27,602
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #27,606
@27,583 (Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6)
> you raise points that would be relevant if it was supposed to be a major language
I said I know it's not meant to be a major language. I raised the points that they expect you to raise in this particular thought experiment. Facial expressions can be easily misread, not to mention that facial expressions don't really apply to a lot of communications, like this one.
@previous (G)
Well then what didn't you get. Or rather, what do you think it is that I don't get?
> you raise points that would be relevant if it was supposed to be a major language
I said I know it's not meant to be a major language. I raised the points that they expect you to raise in this particular thought experiment. Facial expressions can be easily misread, not to mention that facial expressions don't really apply to a lot of communications, like this one.
@previous (G)
Well then what didn't you get. Or rather, what do you think it is that I don't get?
(Edited 43 seconds later.)
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #27,609
Im on my phone can't be bothered typing it out @previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 47 seconds later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #27,610
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #27,616
Mmmmm @previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #27,694
@27,572 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
It's not meant to precise, it's meant to be simple. It's a pidgin language. If you need to be that specific, then this isn't what you should use- try a natural language, or Esperanto, not Toki Pona.
Pidgin languages develop naturally when two people who cannot communicate meet. They develop simple concepts they can understand and then from there they build more complex concepts using the few they have already established. Many languages started out this way, and became more complex with time.
> Now I realize, as mentioned here @25,869 (A) that it's meant to be a thought experiment in how you think and not actually meant for communication. Part of the point of it is to demonstrate the problems I mentioned above. I disagree with it's "meaning of life" purpose though, because I do not believe you can achieve enlightenment by simplifying your thoughts or thought processes. Some things are complicated for a reason, and trying to force them into simple terms, I believe, can actually be harmful.
In day to day stuff, it's not useful, and we need to use regular language, but simplyfying thoughts gives another view on them. No one is suggesting using only Toki Pona, or that real communication should use it when there is a better option. If it were internationally known, which I doubt will happen, it would only be used when two people didn't share a language.
It's not meant to precise, it's meant to be simple. It's a pidgin language. If you need to be that specific, then this isn't what you should use- try a natural language, or Esperanto, not Toki Pona.
Pidgin languages develop naturally when two people who cannot communicate meet. They develop simple concepts they can understand and then from there they build more complex concepts using the few they have already established. Many languages started out this way, and became more complex with time.
> Now I realize, as mentioned here @25,869 (A) that it's meant to be a thought experiment in how you think and not actually meant for communication. Part of the point of it is to demonstrate the problems I mentioned above. I disagree with it's "meaning of life" purpose though, because I do not believe you can achieve enlightenment by simplifying your thoughts or thought processes. Some things are complicated for a reason, and trying to force them into simple terms, I believe, can actually be harmful.
In day to day stuff, it's not useful, and we need to use regular language, but simplyfying thoughts gives another view on them. No one is suggesting using only Toki Pona, or that real communication should use it when there is a better option. If it were internationally known, which I doubt will happen, it would only be used when two people didn't share a language.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 6 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #28,195
I've heard people will simply "switch" into thinking this language to clear their mind or meditate. This is more the goal than actual communication.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 15 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #29,180
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
This
This
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #29,363
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
*facepalm*
NewSpeak removed concepts, sure, but it was made to replace English. Toki Pona is not. Removing concepts for a second language still leaves them in the first.
*facepalm*
NewSpeak removed concepts, sure, but it was made to replace English. Toki Pona is not. Removing concepts for a second language still leaves them in the first.
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #29,844
I read this toki pony language. It is shit. The person who thought of the idea for this language is a stupid hippie faggot and I will burn a dozen tires and throw away 10lbs of styrofoam containers while eating copious amounts of raw tiger meat tonight because of this.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 17 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #29,857
@previous (Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ)
> implying this language has anything to do with environmentalism or animal cruelty.
> implying this language has anything to do with environmentalism or animal cruelty.
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #29,859
@previous (A)
> > implying this language has anything to do with environmentalism or animal cruelty.
> implying I give a fuck about your opinion
> > implying this language has anything to do with environmentalism or animal cruelty.
> implying I give a fuck about your opinion
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 6 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #30,305
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #30,320
psychopath !PSYCHOhc32 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 13 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #30,686
NewSpeak muchgood.
psychopath !PSYCHOhc32 double-posted this 15 years ago, 5 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #31,246
Wow, an easy language so much even a Matt Miller capable learns it.
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 33 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #31,300
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
And the troller becomes the trollee.
And the troller becomes the trollee.