Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c03::22e as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c03::22e;
Message-ID: <54C8DABC.9030307@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 13:49:00 +0100
From: Ilmen <ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Questions about Lojban
References: <63c70fb2-f85a-49bf-8bac-848e04682b3a@googlegroups.com> <1434464239.890000.1422398168059.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <CAO7bV+gi0vqEv2i=x6ooKVOePEPdBp_a7vVcDfRWn5S9YUje6w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO7bV+gi0vqEv2i=x6ooKVOePEPdBp_a7vVcDfRWn5S9YUje6w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------070206070203000503030904"
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: 0.8
X-Spam_score_int: 8
X-Spam_bar: /
X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "stodi.digitalkingdom.org",
 has NOT identified this incoming email as spam.  The original
 message has been attached to this so you can view it or label
 similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
 @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details.
 
 Content preview:  On 28/01/2015 07:34, Gleki Arxokuna wrote: > > 2015-01-28
   1:36 GMT+03:00 'John E Clifford' via lojban > <lojban@googlegroups.com <mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com>>:
    > > Every utterance of Lojban (in particular, though the goal goes > back
    to Loglan) can be shown grammatical in only one way, it has a > unique parse.
    (And presumably a correct one, that is one that > corresponds perfectly to
    that underlying proposition from which > the sentence is derived by the selection
    of rules peculiar to this > language. Whatever the fate of the monoparsing
    claim is at the > moment, this second point – which is the interesting
   one for > refuting the Hypothesis – is not demonstrated.) > > > Please,
   note that as I showed earlier what is definitely "different > parses of the
    same sentence" in English still can be achieved in > Lojban. I mean "I saw
    a plane flying over Zurich" example. > The precisely ambiguous version {mi
    pu viska lo vinji ca lo nu lo se > xivei pa a re no'a cu vofli ga'u la tsurix}
    is a perfect Lojban. > It both means "I saw a plane while I was flying over
    Zurich" and "I > saw a plane while it was flying over Zurich". > > So your
    claim about "monoparsing" has to be clarified. > See reply above showing
   more of this example. [...] 
 
 Content analysis details:   (0.8 points, 5.0 required)
 
  pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
  0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED          ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked.
                             See
                             http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block
                              for more information.
                             [URIs: googlegroups.com]
  2.7 DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL    RBL: Envelope sender listed in dnsbl.ahbl.org
                             [listed in googlegroups.com.rhsbl.ahbl.org.	IN]
                             [A]
 -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3      RBL: Good reputation (+3)
                             [74.125.82.59 listed in wl.mailspike.net]
  0.0 T_HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS From and EnvelopeFrom 2nd level mail
                             domains are different
 -0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
  0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM          Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
                             (ilmen.pokebip[at]gmail.com)
  0.0 DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED   No valid author signature, adsp_override is
                             CUSTOM_MED
  0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
 -1.9 BAYES_00               BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
                             [score: 0.0000]
 -0.1 DKIM_VALID             Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
  0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid
  0.0 T_FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN 2nd level domains in From and
                             EnvelopeFrom freemail headers are different
 -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL      Mailspike good senders

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------070206070203000503030904
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On 28/01/2015 07:34, Gleki Arxokuna wrote:
>
> 2015-01-28 1:36 GMT+03:00 'John E Clifford' via lojban=20
> <lojban@googlegroups.com <mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com>>:
>
>     Every utterance of Lojban (in particular, though the goal goes
>     back to Loglan) can be shown grammatical in only one way, it has a
>     unique parse. (And presumably a correct one, that is one that
>     corresponds perfectly to that underlying proposition from which
>     the sentence is derived by the selection of rules peculiar to this
>     language. Whatever the fate of the monoparsing claim is at the
>     moment, this second point =E2=80=93 which is the interesting one for
>     refuting the Hypothesis =E2=80=93 is not demonstrated.)
>
>
> Please, note that as I showed earlier what is definitely "different=20
> parses of the same sentence" in English still can be achieved in=20
> Lojban. I mean "I saw a plane flying over Zurich" example.
> The precisely ambiguous version {mi pu viska lo vinji ca lo nu lo se=20
> xivei pa a re no'a cu vofli ga'u la tsurix} is a perfect Lojban.
> It both means "I saw a plane while I was flying over Zurich" and "I=20
> saw a plane while it was flying over Zurich".
>
> So your claim about "monoparsing" has to be clarified.
> See reply above showing more of this example.

=C2=ABI saw a plane flying over Zurich=C2=BB can be rendered as {mi puku vi=
ska lo=20
vinji ca lo nu (zo'e) vofli pa'o lo gapru la .tsurix.}; this Lojban=20
sentence is structurally unambiguous, but leaves explicitly the identity=20
of the flying thing to the context (zo'e vofli). As for the English=20
sentence, in addition to not being clear about what is flying, it's=20
parse tree is ambiguous, "flying over Zurich" could either attach to "a=20
plane" (as an adjective would do), or act as an adverbial (targetting=20
the proposition "I saw a plane" as a whole, if I'm not mistaken).

As for the Lojban sentence proposed by Gleki, {mi puku viska lo vinji ca=20
lo nu lo se xi vei pa .a re no'a cu vofli ga'u la .tsurix.}, it can be=20
simplified to {mi puku viska lo vinji ca lo nu ri .a mi vofli ga'u la=20
.tsurix.}, which is similar to what I suggested but having =C2=ABme and/or=
=20
the aircraft=C2=BB as the flying thing; this is also structurally=20
unambiguous, and very explicitly not saying what exactly is flying (me,=20
the aircraft or both?).

mi'e la .ilmen. mu'o


--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--------------070206070203000503030904
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html>
  <head>
    <meta content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dutf-8" http-equiv=3D"Content-Type=
">
  </head>
  <body text=3D"#000000" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF">
    <br>
    <div class=3D"moz-cite-prefix">On 28/01/2015 07:34, Gleki Arxokuna
      wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote
cite=3D"mid:CAO7bV+gi0vqEv2i=3Dx6ooKVOePEPdBp_a7vVcDfRWn5S9YUje6w@mail.gmai=
l.com"
      type=3D"cite">
      <div dir=3D"ltr">
        <div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br>
          <div class=3D"gmail_quote">2015-01-28 1:36 GMT+03:00 'John E
            Clifford' via lojban <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a
                moz-do-not-send=3D"true"
                href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com" target=3D"_blank">l=
ojban@googlegroups.com</a>&gt;</span>:<br>
            <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0
              .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Every
              utterance of Lojban (in particular, though the goal goes
              back to
              Loglan) can be shown grammatical in only one way, it has a
              unique
              parse. (And presumably a correct one, that is one that
              corresponds
              perfectly to that underlying proposition from which the
              sentence is
              derived by the selection of rules peculiar to this
              language. Whatever the fate of the monoparsing claim is at
              the moment, this
              second point =E2=80=93 which is the interesting one for refut=
ing
              the
              Hypothesis =E2=80=93 is not demonstrated.)</blockquote>
          </div>
          <br>
          Please, note that as I showed earlier what is definitely
          "different parses of the same sentence" in English still can
          be achieved in Lojban. I mean "I saw a plane flying over
          Zurich" example.</div>
        <div class=3D"gmail_extra">The precisely ambiguous version {mi pu
          viska lo vinji ca lo nu lo se xivei pa a re no'a cu vofli ga'u
          la tsurix} is a perfect Lojban.</div>
        <div class=3D"gmail_extra">It both means "I saw a plane while I
          was flying over Zurich" and "I saw a plane while it was flying
          over Zurich".</div>
        <div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br>
        </div>
        <div class=3D"gmail_extra">So your claim about "monoparsing" has
          to be clarified.</div>
        <div class=3D"gmail_extra">See reply above showing more of this
          example.<br>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    =C2=ABI saw a plane flying over Zurich=C2=BB can be rendered as {mi puk=
u viska
    lo vinji ca lo nu (zo'e) vofli pa'o lo gapru la .tsurix.}; this
    Lojban sentence is structurally unambiguous, but leaves explicitly
    the identity of the flying thing to the context (zo'e vofli). As for
    the English sentence, in addition to not being clear about what is
    flying, it's parse tree is ambiguous, "flying over Zurich" could
    either attach to "a plane" (as an adjective would do), or act as an
    adverbial (targetting the proposition "I saw a plane" as a whole, if
    I'm not mistaken).<br>
    <br>
    As for the Lojban sentence proposed by Gleki, {mi puku viska lo
    vinji ca lo nu lo se xi vei pa .a re no'a cu vofli ga'u la
    .tsurix.}, it can be simplified to {mi puku viska lo vinji ca lo nu
    ri .a mi vofli ga'u la .tsurix.}, which is similar to what I
    suggested but having =C2=ABme and/or the aircraft=C2=BB as the flying t=
hing;
    this is also structurally unambiguous, and very explicitly not
    saying what exactly is flying (me, the aircraft or both?).<br>
    <br>
    mi'e la .ilmen. mu'o<br>
    <br>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">lojban+unsub=
scribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.=
com">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http:=
//groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/optout">http=
s://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br />

--------------070206070203000503030904--