particles masterpost

[Th3Scribble]

in describing particles, there are a few things we should standardize:

1. how detailed we are with the exact usage, meaning, and edge cases (do we mention the mi/sina li exception in li's definition?)
2. whether we use linguistic terminology like "optative" or common language like "wish" (or maybe both)
3. the phrasing used to explain its function ("marks the ..." "goes before the ..." "... particle" etc)
4. whether translations are provided where clear english equivalents exist or only descriptions are provided (like "[goes before ordinal number], ~th, number ~"
5. what we use to represent the other stuff it connects to (like the "X" in "X ala X" or "Xth")

(also we should standardize punctuation and formatting but that's a dictionary-wide thing, not just a particles thing)
overall the definitions for particles should be as similar as possible and only replace the relevant parts

---

proposed defs:

la: (particle) [marks the end of a context phrase/clause], ~ la = as for ~, if ~, when ~, because ~
en: (particle) [separates multiple subjects]
li: (particle) [marks the start of an indicative (statement) verb]
o: (particle) [marks the start of an optative (wish) verb], should; [marks the end of a vocative phrase (who is being spoken to)], hey
e: (particle) [marks the start of a direct object (thing affected by the subject)]
pi: (particle) [marks the beginning of a phrase, which modifies the previous phrase]
anu: (particle) [separates multiple possibilities, replacing another particle], or, and/or
nanpa: (particle) [marks the start of an ordinal number], ~th, number ~
// skipping the modifier usages of kin, taso, and ala because while they aren't normal content words they aren't like other particles either
ala: (particle) ~ ala ~ = [marks a polar (yes-or-no) question]
a: (particle) [puts emphasis or emotion on the phrase/sentence it follow

[Th3Scribble]

1: we can be specific but it can get kinda ridiculous with li (see current definition of li)
2: i think the best solution here is to use the linguistic term and then the common term in parentheses, because the common term can get unwieldy or awkward
3: "goes before/after" is the most concise way to say it but it almost has the implication that just already are the function they are and the particles just happen to be there. "marks" is bad because it doesn't say where the particle goes relative to the phrase. "... particle" has this problem and is also more confusing if you don't know what a particle is
4: i think this could help in the few cases where it's possible
5: i like ~ for this

[AcipenserSturio]

3 la, what about "marks the start/end of"?

[tbodt]

nimi lili ni la ijo pi toki Inli li ken sama lili taso li ken ala sama ale. But they're can being helpful for kama sona la o lon. mi o sitelen e sama pi toki inli lon nimi lili ni ale tan pilin.

• nanpa ~: number ~, ~th
• li: do, is (imagine english requires one of these in every sentence)
• e: mmmmmmm this is the difference between her and she ?
• o: ala li sama
• pi: ala li sama

[lipamanka]

okay reasons why the li def is not good

1. "He walked to the store." no do or is there. having is and do for that reason would encourage people to think about sentences with it in the future tense maybe?
2. "li = is" is really misleading for reasons I've discussed at length in the past, the most important of which is that it's not a copula and equating it to two copulae (do is a copula right? maybe not) in english is just misleading
3. "of" for "pi" is more useful than "do, is" for li
4. "should, must" for "o" is more useful than "do, is" for li

[Th3Scribble]

proposals for definitions: (content word meanings are skipped)

la: (particle) [marks the end of a context phrase/clause], ~ la = as for ~, if ~, when ~, because ~
en: (particle) [separates multiple subjects]
li: (particle) [marks the start of an indicative (statement) verb]
o: (particle) [marks the start of an optative (wish) verb], should; [marks the end of a vocative phrase (who is being spoken to)], hey
e: (particle) [marks the start of a direct object (thing affected by the subject)]
pi: (particle) [marks the beginning of a phrase which modifies the previous phrase]
anu: (particle) [separates multiple possibilities, replacing another particle], or, and/or
nanpa: (particle) [marks the start of an ordinal number], ~th, number ~
// skipping the modifier usages of kin, taso, and ala because while they aren't normal content words they aren't like other particles either
ala: (particle) ~ ala ~ = [marks a polar (yes-or-no) question]
a: (particle) [puts emphasis or emotion on the phrase/sentence it follows]

for "~ la" and "~ ala ~" i'm not sure how to format those

[KelseyHigham]

can someone add the pu definitions to this thread?

[Th3Scribble]

improved pi def:

pi: (particle) [marks the beginning of a phrase, which acts as a single modifier]

[Th3Scribble]

pu definitions: (i replaced line breaks with //)

a/kin: PARTICLE (emphasis, emotion or confirmation)
ala: ADJECTIVE no, not, zero
anu: PARTICLE or
e: PARTICLE (before the direct object)
en: PARTICLE (between multiple subjects)
la: PARTICLE (between the context phrase and the main sentence)
li: PARTICLE (between any subject except mi alone or sina alone and its verb; also to introduce a new verb for the same subject)
PARTICLE (animal noise or communication)
nanpa: PARTICLE -th (ordinal number) // NOUN numbers
o: PARTICLE hey! O! (vocative or imperative)
pi: PARTICLE of
seme: PARTICLE what? which?
taso: PARTICLE but, however // ADJECTIVE only

[gregdan3]

I proposed the following for la:

"mark the previous statement as context to a following statement"

• covers single la obviously
• covers multiple la implicitly (I didn't tell you which following statement)

[tbodt]

"He walked to the store." no do or is there. having is and do for that reason would encourage people to think about sentences with it in the future tense maybe?
it works for me you just have to imagine this is incorrect english and would correctly be "he did walk to the store".

kin la 'la': "so"

[mazziechai]

I edited the issue body to have the pu definitions for easy viewing.

[lipamanka]

pi: (particle) [marks the beginning of a phrase, which acts as a single modifier]

maybe lose the comma? so it's more clear what acts as a single modifier.

another idea to incorporate is the function of pi: does it make more sense to say somewhere that pi allows us to modify modifiers? and if so, how do we word that best? i think it'd be helpful for beginners to mention that here but idk how easy it'd be

[mi2ebi]

i'd vote for '[rebrackets modifiers]' or similar if that would make sense to everyone

[lipamanka]

i think like the baseline is that you can't learn grammar from a dictionary. functionally these would serve best as reminders for people who have already used a course or had it explained to them. like "what does pi mean again? oh it's the one that regroups modifiers." what if we used some common vocabulary used to explain their usage in lessons? like @gregdan3's lessons, soweli Tesa's lessons, and jan Misali's?

[Th3Scribble]

@mazziechai those are my proposed defs not pu's

[mazziechai]

@mazziechai those are my proposed defs not pu's

oh, could you provide the pu defs for me?

[Th3Scribble]

@berrymot i don't think that would make sense to someone who doesn't already know how pi works
it doesn't say what the new bracketing is

[Th3Scribble]

i posted the pu defs here #19 (comment)

[Th3Scribble]

@lipamanka i removed the comma, good suggestion
i like the "lets you modify a modifier" explanation but i don't know how to concisely say it in this format

[mi2ebi]

@Th3Scribble ah true, sorry

[jnpoJuwan]

'a' already has a definition, so now only everything else to go

(interjection) ah, oh, ha, eh, um, oy; (particle) [placed after something for emphasis or emotion]

I like @Th3Scribble's proposal, here's some thoughts:

• should there be explanations on what linguistic terms mean? for optative (if we decide to use it), 100% yes, no one but nerds know that, for 'direct object', less sure. it would certainly help it be more accessible to people who don't know much about grammar tho
• what do you all think about the word 'verb'? for me, it feels a bit weird, because I don't like to analyse toki pona's parts of speech, in specific content words, as separate (nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs), using a word like 'verb' implies that they are distinct things. where I come from, we're all taught and talk more about predicates when discussing syntax in school, using that is not as bad to me
• o's definition is way too long for me, which is fair because 'o' covers a lot of meanings: vocative, optative, imperative. I don't like putting 'hey' in the translation itself, afaik people don't just call out 'o!'
• la is complicated. it can be either filled with examples of how to use it or defined concisely as 'ends a context phrase'. when learning toki pona, it took me a while to understand what 'context phrase' meant like deeply, but I don't know of a better way to phrase it. @gregdan3's definition [mark the previous statement as context to a following statement] solves this a little for me
• from what I see, pi's definition can be shorter but maybe not helpful to absolute beginners ('[rebrackets modifiers]') or longer, explaining it (I suggest making a poll to decide, either here or elsewhere, to see people's opinion on it)
• ala is hard to phrase concisely, Wiktionary defines it as 'Used between a reduplicated verb to mark a yes-no question'

here is my proposal:

en: (particle) [separates multiple subjects]
li: (particle) [marks the previous phrase/sentence as context to a following sentence]
e: (particle) [marks the start of a direct object]
o: (particle) [marks the end of a vocative (who is being spoken to)], [marks the start of an imperative (command or wish)], should
la: (particle) [marks the end of a context phrase]
pi: (particle) [rebrackets modifiers]
anu: (particle) [separates multiple possibilities, replacing another particle], or, and/or*

pseudo-particles:

ala: (particle) [placed between a reduplicated verb to mark a yes-or-no question]
kin: (particle) [placed after anything] too, as well
nanpa: (particle) [marks the start of an ordinal number], ~th*, number ~*
taso: (particle) [placed at the start of a sentence] but, however

* may be removed in translation

for la and pi especially, but this is true for all definitions, do write a short grammar explanation of how they work in the commentary, not a full lesson, but more like a cheat sheet, Wiktionary's usage notes sometimes do this so I think it's fine