> You can think of most common languages as "lossless" (at least in comparison),
If only! For most words in most sentences, you can find direct translations, but between most language pairs, I'm pretty sure any given text (just one page or so, let alone books) will have at least one point where you have to interpret the text to translate it: choose what meaning the author intended or what saying/expression conveys the same meaning the closest without going into descriptive mode.
I suppose that might be what you meant by "in comparison", but it seems misleading, at least to anyone not fluent/proficient enough in another language to know that lossless translations isn't how languages work
But, yes, toki pona lifts this to a whole 'nother level. Does anyone happen to know how Esperanto compares? As far as I know, it should be quite similar to a "normal" (non-con)language in this regard (just simpler to learn, with bonus points if you speak a romance language afaik)
If only! For most words in most sentences, you can find direct translations, but between most language pairs, I'm pretty sure any given text (just one page or so, let alone books) will have at least one point where you have to interpret the text to translate it: choose what meaning the author intended or what saying/expression conveys the same meaning the closest without going into descriptive mode.
I suppose that might be what you meant by "in comparison", but it seems misleading, at least to anyone not fluent/proficient enough in another language to know that lossless translations isn't how languages work
But, yes, toki pona lifts this to a whole 'nother level. Does anyone happen to know how Esperanto compares? As far as I know, it should be quite similar to a "normal" (non-con)language in this regard (just simpler to learn, with bonus points if you speak a romance language afaik)