Calling li
a particle or predicate marker is correct and not misleading. A Toki Pona clause can have more than one predicate. li
never marks a non-predicate. It also appears on every predicate except when that predicate is the first one in the clause and the subject is exactly mi
or exactly sina
(101) or when preceded by the vocative/imperative particle o
(102).
I think a good way to analyze this would be to say that every indicative predicate obligatorily has a predicate marker, but sometimes it's null.
mi moku li pakala. (101)
I food LI mistake.
I eat and destroy.
o lukin e ni. (102)
IMP see DObj that.
watch this.
Here's a fragment of (my best guess of) the Toki Pona grammar. I haven't seen any examples of stacking imperative phrases, so I don't know whether look and say would be o lukin li toki
or o lukin o toki
.
Also, in Toki Pona verb phrases and noun phrases are different syntactically. For instance, *sina moku e soweli ala soweli.
cannot be used to mean are you a vegetarian.
LI := 0 | "li"
PredInd := LI VP {PP} | LI NP
ClauseInd := NP [PredInd]
PredImp := "o" VP {PP} | "o" NP
ClauseImp := NP PredImp | PredImp
I'm not thrilled with this analysis because of the asymmetry between indicative and imperative clauses. Unifying the clause types, however, would predict that *li moku.
is valid. As far as I can tell, Toki Pona does not permit null subjects in indicative clauses.
I can think of two potential alternative analyses for li
: A) it's a pronoun (like in Example 4 Longgu on this WALS article or B) it's a preposition. I'll try to show that both of those analyses lead to bad predictions.
A) li
as pronoun.
This falls apart for a couple of reasons. It predicts that mi moku li pakala
would be invalid and that the correct form would be mi moku mi pakala
. In reality, both forms are fine.
li
as a pronoun also predicts that *li moku
would be valid since it would contain an explicit subject under that analysis.
Also, *mi moku li.
cannot be used to mean I eat it.
B) li
as preposition.
If li
were a preposition, (103) and (104) would both be valid.
Mi pakala e moku. (103)
I ruin the food.
*Mi e moku li pakala. (104)
*I ruin the food.
If li
were a preposition, the following would be invalid.
Ona mute li toki ala toki? (105)
Are they speaking?