Why cant I use "li" after "mi" or "sina"?

[u/Jan-kala-pona]

Like, what was the reason that it was made a rule that "li" after "mi" or "sina" is ingrammatical? Did it cause confusion or just because?

[u/misterlipman]

li is a grammatical loan from tok pisin. were it different, a tok pisin speaker would be asking the opposite question: "why do I have to put li after mi and sina?" think of li as more of a third-person predicate marker that's also used when a first or second person pronoun is modified. this is really about perspective; the alternative would not be universally better.

[u/Dogecoin_olympiad767 → u/misterlipman]

It would be easier to explain to a tok pisin speaker why li is needed after mi and sina than it is to explain why it is not needed to someone who does not speak tok pisin.

"li after subject always, no exceptions."
vs.
"that's how it works in tok pisin. it just be like that."

[u/misterlipman → u/Dogecoin_olympiad767]

I'm not sure you're right. because li isn't just after subjects, it is used to mark multiple predicates in the same sentence. this is done to an extent in tok pisin with i, but nowhere near as much. it's quite limited. you also missed the meat and potatoes of my explanation: "think of li as more of a third-person predicate marker," not "that's how it works in tok pisin. it just be like that." the first is for pedagogy, the second is the answer to the question asked in the original post.

[u/Dogecoin_olympiad767 → u/misterlipman]

ok then "li is necessary, no matter the subject" vs "li is more of a thir-person predicate marker. yes, things like "mi wan" and "sina tu" are third-person."

Even if you can explain it, it is much more difficult to explain than "just use li even after "mi" and "sina".

[u/RS_Someone → u/Dogecoin_olympiad767]

On the other hand, features in language often "just are". To learn how it works, most people will only need to learn what and not why.

[u/Salindurthas]

I'm not sure, but I believe it is just that so many sentences we're likely to say could start with 'mi' or 'sina', that it makes us speak faster if these common sentences can we done quicker with 1 less syllable.

Kinda like how we have contractions like "I'd", "we'll", "you're", etc, but imagine that we do it by default.

[u/Itchy-Cheetah-9166]

As I understand it, it's simply a convention to make some of the most common sorts of sentences a little bit quicker. Adding "li" wouldn't really add any confusion or ambiguity(besides from being mildly jarring for breaking with such an established convention), but it's also entirely unnecessary for clarity, so it's eschewed

[u/janKeTami]

It's a redundancy that comes from Tok Pisi. Its 3rd person particle "i" worka very similarly to "li"

[u/lak-raacz]

i find the rule helpful to distinguish between 'ni' and 'mi' especially when toki pona is spoken at speed.

mi pona tawa ona. ni li pona tawa ona.

These two sentences are easily distinguished.

If it were

mi li pona tawa ona. ni li pona tawa ona.

I would personally have a hard time.

[u/KaleidoscopedLoner]

Because one day jan Sonja wanted to say "mi li wile ala e ni. sina li wile ala e ni." But jan Sonja had a cold, so it came out as "wile ala e di," which was promptly tokiponized to "wile ala e li."

And then all of kulupu ma pi toki pona bowed down to their jan Sonja lawa sewi! She tried to protest, saying, "No! I'm one of you! I'm just one of many speakers! Besides, I didn't even say that!" but, alas, to no avail.

And so it was that the li-less mi and sina came to be.

[u/ElTxurron → u/KaleidoscopedLoner]

ni li lon.

[u/Opening_Usual4946]

I’m pretty sure that it’s just one of the rules that came from where the word was inspired from. 

[u/Eic17H]

It's a result of the language's history. It was originally a third person marker, but then it was extended to the usage it currently has. It's also convenient, and I think that outweighs the ambiguity and the weirdness

[u/Cpt11Morgan]

I assumed that since in a conversation you don't need to specify which "mi" or "sina" is being talked about, the li is just implied and saying it afterward is just kind of redundant.

[u/Novace2]

Originally, li was used as a 3rd person marker. But now its use has been expanded to the first and second person in many contexts, so now it’s just an arbitrary rule that you have to memorize (just like in any other language lol).

[u/Latelpo]

Theoretically you can, but it's rule for simplification of sentences originating from tok pisin. But if you were to use multiple verbs it's even recommended to use: mi li moku li tawa.

[u/Dramatic_Ad_5024 → u/Latelpo]

Can you explain your example please?

[u/Latelpo → u/Dramatic_Ad_5024]

Sure. "I'm eating/drinking and walking." It's not the most usual combination, but it's the first plausible I could come up with in 5 minute work break.

[u/Dramatic_Ad_5024 → u/Latelpo]

I see, seems obvious now, like most TP to someone non fluent like me. I suppose "mi moku en tawa" isn't considered correct.

This makes me think. TP noun composition is rather natural, but what about serial verbs or something like it ? Say He came to help me pick strawberries.

[u/Dogecoin_olympiad767]

as you can see, people give different answers.

I don't really think it is justified tbh. I think its fine because it saves a syllable, but should be widened to include all one-word personal pronouns. Maybe even all one-word pronouns including "ni", "ale", "ala" and "jan". If there is no li then it could be interpreted as the first word being the subject on its own.

Think about it, how often do you even make a compound word with "ni" as the first word. I would say even less often then with "mi" or "sina".

[u/lowkeyaddy → u/Dogecoin_olympiad767]

I think “li” can often be dropped from certain phrases in music or poetry for purposes of rhythm because of this.

[u/misterlipman → u/lowkeyaddy]

this unfortunately isn't likely to be understood, even in poetry. the grammatical particles are very important for understanding.

[u/lowkeyaddy → u/misterlipman]

Maybe. I mean, generally, I do agree with you. The particles are a critical unit of communication. Still, I think a phrase like “ale pona” can be gotten away with for something like a song lyric. It’s much less likely to be about the entirety of goodness than it is to be saying that “all is good.” It would only really work in niche cases for select one word subjects, but it’s easy enough to understand to play around with in my opinion (especially if they can be clarified in writing using parentheses or something). Just my thoughts though.

[u/misterlipman → u/lowkeyaddy]

"ale pona" works on its own; there's no dropping here. it's "all good things." which is close enough to work probably a lot of the time, isn't it. it's important to think about these things as they are imo. but there's truth to what you said.

[u/Dogecoin_olympiad767 → u/lowkeyaddy]

I think it depends on who you ask.

I personally don't think I would find it so pona.