Hacker News Reader

Comment by Conlectus | Hacker News Reader

I note that with a vocabulary of 1,000 words it is roughly 10x the size of Toki Pona, a conlang which also aims for minimalism.

That said, Toki Pona's goal is to help clarify thought, whereas this seems to intend to prioritize communication more highly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toki_Pona

View on HN

There's an extended discussion about the relationship and differences between the two here: https://minilanguage.medium.com/mini-the-minimal-language-3f...

"The spark that led me to create Mini was realizing that a micro-language like TP could actually work: there’s no reason in principle a language with a limited word-count couldn’t have a simple, complete, and unambiguous grammar alongside a vocabulary based on intelligible word roots designed to handle most aspects of everyday discourse...."

Though if you speak Spanish and English you'll probably be able to guess most of the words, so you may find it easier to read initially than Toki Pona.

I've been making a game system in which the core mechanic is using a limited language to describe magical effects, so it's a long way away from the intended purpose for both Toki Pona and Mini. However, I've found that Mini is far easier to work with and more expressive for my purposes because it's easier to put structure into the statements using the particles to indicate what part of speech is intended for each word. The selection of words also seems to be surprisingly well-chosen, because most of my use cases have been pretty straightforward to express.

I haven't really tried to limit the system to just Mini Kore (which is also 120 words, like Toki Pona, and would be a more direct comparison), mostly because Mini's current size actually seems to have the right feel. It might be an interesting experiment though.

Help clarify thought? While being actively hostile to numbers?

I’m not acquainted to TP, can you precise what you mean here or provide some link about this?

https://lipu-sona.pona.la/11.html

I suppose I can agree with this page saying it "simplifies" thought, but not in the good way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com