a

[lipamanka]

a

sona pu

PARTICLE (emphasis, emotion or confirmation)

sona Linku pi toki Inli

(emphasis, emotion or confirmation)

sona Linku pi toki pona

nimi a li suli e toki e nimi lon poka

sona ku

ah⁵, oh⁵, ha⁵, ooh⁴, uh⁴, gosh⁴, whoa⁴, wow⁴, um³, huh³, uh-huh², quite², gasp², really², mm-hmm², hmm², sigh²

sona sin

[AcipenserSturio]

Discussion starters from me:

are we sure explaining is better than listing "ah, oh, ha" etc?

[lipamanka]

I think it's NOT better than listing those! I think we should make the definition funny too like hm? oh. ha! eh, um... ARGH! oy. ugh. ah. ahh. mmmm. we could also just elect for something more boring like oh, ha, eh, um, oy, ah

[AcipenserSturio]

the funny is funny but i support something boring

also for translators we're definitely gonna need an explanation of what vibe each of those interjections has

[lipamanka]

for translators they should probably end up choosing a bunch of similar noises in their language. it's not going to be 1-1. Hell, most english speakers wouldn't've put "oy" on there but I think it fits and I want there to be a slight jewish touch in here. you can't exactly ... translate paralinguistic noises

[AcipenserSturio]

It's worth pointing out to translators that the same noise in English doesn't necessarily carry the same connotation in the target language

e.g., english "oi!" as in "what the fuck are you doing" is best translated to russian as [ɛː]

[lipamanka]

precisely. awesome! I will draft a finished a thing when I get my energy back

[gregdan3]

i think the list trick actually works really well here, since we can never make a fully exhaustive or even satisfying list

a way of expressing emotion, such as: hm? oh. ha! eh, um... ARGH! oy. ugh. ah. ahh. mmmm.

[lipamanka]

that works! but it makes me consider if we should self-impose a character limit on these so we can more comfortably make them longer without worrying about that

[KelseyHigham]

descriptively, i've heard some of these uses but not all of them. i've definitely heard these: ah, oh, ha, hm i think argh and ugh fit under ah not sure what's meant by eh or mmm i haven't heard oy

[KelseyHigham]

i think we should also note that it's a particle that emphasizes what it comes after

[lipamanka]

I don't think it's a particle, it's paralinguistic. it's just a noise you make to express emotion. it can emphasize what it comes after but it can also just emphasize the whole sentence. I think just listing the things it can mean is more effective. also I've seen too many beginners get confused by the "particle" under a. Unlike every other word that I might describe as a particle, it doesn't mark anything in syntax.

As for your examples, I think you might be overthinking it. toki pona doesn't fit these into the same categories english does. a can express all of these sentiments and still sound like [a] with different inflection and context. if something disappointing or annoying happens, you might respond with "a." in english I'd respond with "oy" or "ugh." So including as much of these little sounds people make in english gives people the idea that a is used to fulfill all of those sentiments.

That being said I'm struggling to word one that I like so perhaps you should try?

[mazziechai]

I don't think it's a particle, it's paralinguistic. it's just a noise you make to express emotion.

and

it can emphasize what it comes after but it can also just emphasize the whole sentence.

seem to conflict. I think a is an emotion word AND a particle because of these two things. Considering that Mandarin 啊 (as a sentence final sound) exists and is linguistically classified as an emphasis particle AND as a paralinguistic sound, I don't think this is true, especially with how many people use it as a particle for emphasis in the same way as 啊.

[lipamanka]

Yeah maybe but saying it's a particle I think might still be misleading to beginners, and the reason why I think that is because I've seen beginners get confused by that terminology for a before

[mazziechai]

Yeah maybe but saying it's a particle I think might still be misleading to beginners, and the reason why I think that is because I've seen beginners get confused by that terminology for a before

Introducing the concept of particles is something that's necessary, since li, e, and so on are literally particles, and that's eventually unavoidable to learn. Lying to beginners by omission about what toki pona words actually are for the sake of making it "simpler" is pretty bad in my opinion. It's like introducing content words as filling in the role as different parts of speech, like saying "soweli li toki pona" is a noun followed by a verb and an adjective modifying that verb, which gets even more confusing in the long run.

If you really want to never say the word "particle", my suggestion is something like this:

function word for emphasizing a word or sentence; a way of expressing emotion, such as hm? oh. ...

But then you would have to explain what a function word is if someone doesn't get it, which in this case is just a particle, and that's not solving the issue, is it?

[lipamanka]

I don't really know how to respond to .. that. I feel like I wasn't saying any of that and I feel like we're arguing now? I am not okay with that.

[mazziechai]

If you think disagreements or even misunderstanding what someone said is arguing and therefore doesn't have to be engaged with, then I don't want to participate in this project, sorry. Having a committee to discuss these changes for the purpose of making the semantic spaces of words clearer for the purposes of teaching and then shutting down a disagreement about pedagogy is weird. If I was misunderstanding you, you should clarify that and tell me what I misunderstood to move along the conversation. I'm not interacting in bad faith and you know that.

[lipamanka]

I said that including the word "particle" in the word a was confusing for beginners.

You said that a can be both a particle and paralinguistic like mandarin 啊

I said that "saying it's a particle I think might still be misleading to beginners"

You told me that I was "lying to beginners by omission about what toki pona words actually are for the sake of making it 'simpler'" and "never want to say the word particle"

I said "I feel like I wasn't saying any of that" and raised concerns about the tone of this issue

And then you said "I don't want to participate in this project, sorry" and cited the things I said as why

That's my understanding of what happened. correct me if I'm wrong.

[mazziechai]

I don't see the problem with the content of the discussion then since we have the same understanding.

I do see a problem with the issue you seem have with my tone. This is just how I talk...

[RetSamys]

This probably doesn't add much to the conversation, but here I go

oh, ha, eh, um, oy, ah

These are good, but I'm definitely missing the emphasises-previous-words-phrases-or-even-sentences part - whatever we want to call it (nasin toki pona describes it as an "emoticle" hehe, next to "pure particles" and "pseudoparticles"). Hm, oh, I don't know how uncontroversial it is that "a" applies specifically to the sentence as a whole, that doesn't really have to be part of the dictionary entry

[AcipenserSturio]

In a Discord conversation at the start, we had agreed to mark parts of speech:

including a marking for part of speech in the definition? 👍 / 👎 (two 👍s) specifically: content, pv, prep, semiparticle or, content unmarked should this also apply to particles (the ones that don't have a content word version?) 👍 / 👎 (three 👍s)

So, unless a is a content word, which it isn't, it's receiving a (part of speech) note in front of the definition.

As we can see from the conversation above, calling it a "particle" does not go down well with everyone and seems to require more explanation when teaching. Decent option but not perfect.

jan Ke Tami has pointed out that some grammars already put it down as something-other-than-a-particle, which in nasin toki pona's case is called an "emoticle". This works fine for nasin toki pona, but our dictionary will end up translated to multiple languages, each of which would have to coin a word for "emoticle". Problematic.

I propose simply putting it down as "interjection". That's separates "a" from particles without requiring an ad hoc name, is linguistically accurate, and I hope still readable for laymen. (👍 / 👎?)

[RetSamys]

I don't mind, but if we care about this, wouldn't the term "interjection" be inaccurate when it comes to mid-sentence, modifier-like, "a"?

[AcipenserSturio]

I get your point and I feel like it's not precisely accurate, but it can be commented on during teaching instead, methinks

[lipamanka]

yeah it'd be nice to have it say somewhere in linku "remember, a proficient speaker will be able to elaborate more on these definitions!" so if someone's like "but linku doesn't say that!" we can point to it and be like "linku says listen to me"

[AcipenserSturio]

sounds like a good about page to write

[lipamanka]

i could do that! it'd

1. outline this project's design goals
2. explain how to use the final product in pedagogy

or something

[AcipenserSturio]

im open to that but would prefer it if this gets postponed until after the definitions rework

[Daenyth]

I don't see the problem with calling "a" a particle. Aside from coining new words, how is it not? If it's an interjection then why can it appear mid-sentence with a known structure of grammar and behavior?

I think a might be a rare word where we do have two somewhat distinct definitions because the use as a particle-ish modifier don't behave quite the same as when used as an interjection

[AcipenserSturio]

we do have two somewhat distinct definitions because the use as a particle-ish modifier don't behave quite the same as when used as an interjection

Would anyone like to try phrase the definition in terms of that, then?

[gregdan3]

I propose simply putting it down as "interjection". That's separates "a" from particles without requiring an ad hoc name, is linguistically accurate, and I hope still readable for laymen. (👍 / 👎?)

• Interjection is probably better used as a part of speech rather than a tag for a word; content words and a fit into it. Otherwise this is kinda like labeling "wawa" as "subject, verb, object, indirect object, modifier, interjection". But "content word" covers all of these, and "a" fits into only modifier and interjection here.
• a is not exclusively an interjection, though that is a common use for it; it's also a modifier, unless we'd like to analyze interjections as validly fitting into sentences which is something that would only really apply to a

(way of expressing emotion)

With this definition, we have two things to consider:

• Acknowledge that a is not quite a content word nor exclusively an interjection (or generally, that it's a little weird compared to all the other words)
• Acknowledge that a has more use emotionally than just what we list

I'm kinda wondering then, how much responsibility do we have to label word functions? As I recall, we were looking at delineating only these categories:

• Particle (or without terminology, thing with grammatical function)
• Preverb
• Preposition

And a doesn't really suit "thing with grammatical function". If anything, the grammar acts on it, limiting where it can go.

[KelseyHigham]

onomatopoeia: ah, oh, ha, eh, um, oy
particle: (emphasizes what it comes after)

onomatopoeia might not be the right word, but i think a two-part structure like this would be good.

[KelseyHigham]

(interjection) ah, oh, ha, eh, um, oy; (particle) [emphasizes what it comes after]

[Daenyth]

Do we want to note the particle-modifier words with something other than "particle"? Words like kin and taso.

Something like "(modifier particle) [emphasizes the word it is modifying]"

(interjection) ah, oh, ha, eh, um, oy, hm, oh, OK; (modifier particle) [emphasizes what it comes after]

[AcipenserSturio]

Personally I think that would be more confusing than helpful - a modifier particle might be read wrong, like "particle for modifiers"

Learners are expected to learn how each particle behaves on a case by case basis, so if this particle behaves differently from others, that's no big deal imo

[AcipenserSturio]

Also, wait - what comes after? I was under the impression it emphasises the previous word / phrase / sentence, not the following one

[KelseyHigham]

what it comes after

[AcipenserSturio]

Ooooh, I missed a word. I missed an "it" in the definition, which flips it on its head

Do we think that's me being stupid or its a legitimate problem? /genuine

[KelseyHigham]

i phrased it this way because i wanted the word "after" in there for skimmers. since "a" goes after things

[AcipenserSturio]

Okay I am re-:rocket:ing that

[gregdan3]

(interjection) ah, oh, ha, eh, um, oy; (particle) [emphasizes what it comes after]

Do we want to use brackets for particle definitions? Is it necessary to do so if it is prefixed with (particle) already?

[KelseyHigham]

this feels inconsistent wile: (preverb) want to a: (particle) emphasizes what it comes after

one is a translation, the other is a text description

[gregdan3]

that's fair actually, it does feel a little wrong without something to indicate it do we commit to square brackets for [function of the word] type definitions?

[lipamanka]

sure

[Th3Scribble]

definition i wrote before i figured out github and found this discussion

(particle) [puts emotion or emphasis on the word(s) or sentence it follows]; [generic interjection], ah, oh, wow, huh

is the second use a particle or something else if it's not a particle i'm not really sure what else it could be

[Th3Scribble]

should we make a note specifically about how it can be used for laughter, especially when repeated?

[Th3Scribble]

i wonder if "[spoken exclamation point]" would be a good inclusion, since it's a fairly intuitive way of explaining how it works

[gtbot2007]

how about [signifies emphasis, emotion or exclamation] ?

[lipamanka]

I like that. now the REAL question: do we want the oxford comma or not?? vote on your phones!!!

[AcipenserSturio]

In English yes. In translation, depends entirely on their most accepted punctuation principles

[lipamanka]

well people don't like the oxford comma or something idk it could be debatable (i'm in favor)

[Sobsz]

the lipu-linku org description hasn't an oxford comma

A bot, a database and a website, providing a Toki Pona dictionary.

so teeechnically the precedent (kala Asi's idiolect) is against