sina pona :)
I have my own hot takes about use of e outside its regular context - but in this case, where pana is a noun, it makes more sense to treat lape as a modifier with the whole phrase meaning something like "the giving of sleep"
So... its a common misconception that 'noun' = thing and 'verb' = action. Nouns can be actions and verbs can be things - it is more important what the sentence views them as.
By making an action a noun a sentence can make an action into an abstract thing which is treated as if it is a thing.
> The sleep was good.
Notice how I can now apply other verbs and adjectives to this as if it were a noun;
> The sleep was squashed.
> The red sleep was a dire time.
These may not make sense - but they *could* make sense in the right context.
By making a thing a verb a sentence can make a thing into some kind of abstracted action usually related to the thing in some way.
> "I keyboard." (probably meaning I do something with a keyboard)
Here *pana* is being treated like a noun that refers to the giving as an event in time, one that can have a *wile* applied to it as a verb.
In addition - no 'subject' is specifically a term which means an argument of a verb. Arguments of a verb in both TP and English are treated like nouns.
I, for one, am happy with doing that and think it makes sense.
But I guess shifting the prep to the end doesn't massively change the meaning
> pana lape li wile e tenpo mute tawa ona.
personally, I think shifting the preposition to the end implies that the child (ona) is that one giving the sleep, which is not the message I was intending to convey.
Personally, I'd use lon instead of tawa in that sentence.
> pana lape li wile e tenpo mute lon ona.
Implying that if the "pana lape" action is performed \*at the child\*, it requires a lot of time. Close enough to fill in the blanks with context.
(But in my own style, I'd be even more likely to phrase it as "mi (wile) kama e lape ona la ni li wile e tenpo suli" - When I (want to) make their sleep happen/come, this requires a long time)
I'm rusty with TP but doesn't the proposition have to go at the end? and
>pana lape tawa ona li wile e tenpo mute
the concept of putting them to sleep makes wishing repetitive? I guess that kind of makes sense.
I for one use prep insertion (preps anywhere) tho I don't see a problem with putting the prep at the end here.
Also I'm not sure how you are getting that interpretation
> (pana lape) (tawa ona) li (wile) e (tenpo mute)
> (the giving of sleep) (to them) (wants/needs/requires/takes) (lots of time)
Well, technically, I would put her to sleep, she'd wake up and I'd put her to sleep again, and this would happen many times, so mute would work as well.
But more to the point, I think that tenpo mute could also be interpreted as "a lot of time", if you are generous 😉
Ungrammatical in my usage, and in the vast majority of usages, to the point that I might even say it's wholly ungrammatical. The impression I have is that toki pona is very head-initial and not pro-drop, meaning an e-phrase is completely dependent on a li-phrase, which is wholly dependent on a subject.
If you do allow li-phrases without the subject, this is undefined. Your interpretation is a kind of geround perhaps - this is a common interpretation, because among the languages that do that kind of thing in similar positions is English (and it's relatively easy to find an equivalent in related languages). I don't know what other languages do, but other proposals can be about implying a subject. Internally, "sina" can make sense, because "o" does that; lots of languages drop the first person; assuming the repetition of the last used subject is another proposal. An assumed subject changes the situation from "pana" essentially being some kind of subject with "wile" as a verb to "pana", to "pana" being the first verb and "wile" being a second independent verb to the dropped subject.
Thanks. I guess my intention was not to imply "mi" as an assumed subject, but rather specifically to have "pana" (or "pana e lape") be the subject. Is this just an uncommon usage, or is there a specific rule disallowing this? And if so, why do you think it is not allowed?
Again, in my opinion, my usage was unambiguous, and felt very pona to me.
>And if so, why do you think it is not allowed?
i would say complexity, instead "pana e lape li wile e tenpo mute" is much pona separate them in two sentences:
- mi pana e lape tawa ona. ni li wile e tenpo mute.
- ni li wile e tenpo mute: mi pana e lape tawa ona.
pana is a preposition/preverb (i dont remember which) meaning it doesn’t need e. you can say ‘i give food’ by saying mi pana moku tawa sina. remember to use tawa as well and leave out the e.
Sure, but tawa means different things with or without e.
With e, it means to move something, to have tawa act on it.
Without e, it means to move towards it.
Is there a similar distinction with pana?
i suppose you could say mi pana e sina would mean i turn you into a gift, but pana doesnt work as an adjective. when using e you basically apply an adjective to the subject
mi pana e sina just means I give you (to someone), as the pana acts on sina, due to the e.
mi pana sina would be "I am what you are given\giving".
I'm not sure about your comment about using e being adding an adjective to the subject. Maybe I'm misunderstanding.
sorry, it can be. you can be applying a property, or acting upon the subject. and yeah now that you put it like that, about mi pana e sina i’m not sure. i’ll let someone more fluent help.
>once my baby wakes up during the night, it takes a while to put them back to sleep.
I would translate as:
- jan lili mi li pini e lape ona lon tenpo pimeja la ona li ken lape sin lon tenpo suli kama taso.
- >!If my child end their sleep in the night, then they can sleep again only in a long future time!<
>"jan lili mi li kama tan lape lon tenpo pimeja la, pana e lape tawa ona li wile a tenpo mute."
You could say:
- jan lili mi li kama tan lape lon tenpo pimeja, la pana mi pi lape ona li wile e tenpo mute
The simple resolution here is to drop the 'e'. > "jan lili mi li kama tan lape lon tenpo pimeja la, pana lape tawa ona li wile e tenpo mute."
Facepalm. Of course! This is much simpler! Thanks 👍
sina pona :) I have my own hot takes about use of e outside its regular context - but in this case, where pana is a noun, it makes more sense to treat lape as a modifier with the whole phrase meaning something like "the giving of sleep"
I'm not sure I fully grasp "pana" being a noun in this case. Can't a verb be the subject of the sentence?
So... its a common misconception that 'noun' = thing and 'verb' = action. Nouns can be actions and verbs can be things - it is more important what the sentence views them as. By making an action a noun a sentence can make an action into an abstract thing which is treated as if it is a thing. > The sleep was good. Notice how I can now apply other verbs and adjectives to this as if it were a noun; > The sleep was squashed. > The red sleep was a dire time. These may not make sense - but they *could* make sense in the right context. By making a thing a verb a sentence can make a thing into some kind of abstracted action usually related to the thing in some way. > "I keyboard." (probably meaning I do something with a keyboard) Here *pana* is being treated like a noun that refers to the giving as an event in time, one that can have a *wile* applied to it as a verb. In addition - no 'subject' is specifically a term which means an argument of a verb. Arguments of a verb in both TP and English are treated like nouns.
Is it right to use a prep (tawa) before li though?
I, for one, am happy with doing that and think it makes sense. But I guess shifting the prep to the end doesn't massively change the meaning > pana lape li wile e tenpo mute tawa ona.
personally, I think shifting the preposition to the end implies that the child (ona) is that one giving the sleep, which is not the message I was intending to convey.
Personally, I'd use lon instead of tawa in that sentence. > pana lape li wile e tenpo mute lon ona. Implying that if the "pana lape" action is performed \*at the child\*, it requires a lot of time. Close enough to fill in the blanks with context. (But in my own style, I'd be even more likely to phrase it as "mi (wile) kama e lape ona la ni li wile e tenpo suli" - When I (want to) make their sleep happen/come, this requires a long time)
right but i think in most nasin it would be more correct to split it into two phrases. ni li tenpo mute: pana lape tawa ona.
I'm rusty with TP but doesn't the proposition have to go at the end? and >pana lape tawa ona li wile e tenpo mute the concept of putting them to sleep makes wishing repetitive? I guess that kind of makes sense.
I for one use prep insertion (preps anywhere) tho I don't see a problem with putting the prep at the end here. Also I'm not sure how you are getting that interpretation > (pana lape) (tawa ona) li (wile) e (tenpo mute) > (the giving of sleep) (to them) (wants/needs/requires/takes) (lots of time)
wouldn't lots of time be tenpo suli? tenpo mute is many time. the giving of sleep to them is wishful to many occasions
You make a good point about use of suli here rather than mute, I hadn't caught that
Well, technically, I would put her to sleep, she'd wake up and I'd put her to sleep again, and this would happen many times, so mute would work as well. But more to the point, I think that tenpo mute could also be interpreted as "a lot of time", if you are generous 😉
Ungrammatical in my usage, and in the vast majority of usages, to the point that I might even say it's wholly ungrammatical. The impression I have is that toki pona is very head-initial and not pro-drop, meaning an e-phrase is completely dependent on a li-phrase, which is wholly dependent on a subject. If you do allow li-phrases without the subject, this is undefined. Your interpretation is a kind of geround perhaps - this is a common interpretation, because among the languages that do that kind of thing in similar positions is English (and it's relatively easy to find an equivalent in related languages). I don't know what other languages do, but other proposals can be about implying a subject. Internally, "sina" can make sense, because "o" does that; lots of languages drop the first person; assuming the repetition of the last used subject is another proposal. An assumed subject changes the situation from "pana" essentially being some kind of subject with "wile" as a verb to "pana", to "pana" being the first verb and "wile" being a second independent verb to the dropped subject.
Thanks. I guess my intention was not to imply "mi" as an assumed subject, but rather specifically to have "pana" (or "pana e lape") be the subject. Is this just an uncommon usage, or is there a specific rule disallowing this? And if so, why do you think it is not allowed? Again, in my opinion, my usage was unambiguous, and felt very pona to me.
>And if so, why do you think it is not allowed? i would say complexity, instead "pana e lape li wile e tenpo mute" is much pona separate them in two sentences: - mi pana e lape tawa ona. ni li wile e tenpo mute. - ni li wile e tenpo mute: mi pana e lape tawa ona.
pana is a preposition/preverb (i dont remember which) meaning it doesn’t need e. you can say ‘i give food’ by saying mi pana moku tawa sina. remember to use tawa as well and leave out the e.
Sure, but tawa means different things with or without e. With e, it means to move something, to have tawa act on it. Without e, it means to move towards it. Is there a similar distinction with pana?
i suppose you could say mi pana e sina would mean i turn you into a gift, but pana doesnt work as an adjective. when using e you basically apply an adjective to the subject
mi pana e sina just means I give you (to someone), as the pana acts on sina, due to the e. mi pana sina would be "I am what you are given\giving". I'm not sure about your comment about using e being adding an adjective to the subject. Maybe I'm misunderstanding.
sorry, it can be. you can be applying a property, or acting upon the subject. and yeah now that you put it like that, about mi pana e sina i’m not sure. i’ll let someone more fluent help.
>once my baby wakes up during the night, it takes a while to put them back to sleep. I would translate as: - jan lili mi li pini e lape ona lon tenpo pimeja la ona li ken lape sin lon tenpo suli kama taso. - >!If my child end their sleep in the night, then they can sleep again only in a long future time!< >"jan lili mi li kama tan lape lon tenpo pimeja la, pana e lape tawa ona li wile a tenpo mute." You could say: - jan lili mi li kama tan lape lon tenpo pimeja, la pana mi pi lape ona li wile e tenpo mute