Received: from mail-ie0-f189.google.com ([209.85.223.189]:35881) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YGZQ4-0007Pt-6e for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 12:41:01 -0800 Received: by mail-ie0-f189.google.com with SMTP id y20sf4208568ier.6 for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 12:40:54 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=date:from:reply-to:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version:content-type:content-length:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe; bh=Y80gfiXaGkKhh3HGWzHNpOMHIuRn5s5xwzN7r4Fbs2E=; b=EWYEegt8TfdTuYXuBKWleT7b9N+tZYAaii+GJamD1tufhqCLW0jx+I6h69U/sxQAgY ynttXSEGn9BBCAM03zQ0tYHC1Xv5e2ST3GzHJWn65fAQkZYWpN3SfwGjny8RF05jA8dr hu/tbZQ/mTRi1zptCuQirsCEIdTX4NuObtAM6HoW8kktuk/6GS8e+8XeF4yTcjRHQM4g ehkRm7sC94GGNB2Ln0tlQl8vaWw29HXeztONTKhHd5mvxXJA/PDs8AdL1irziY8M5QOT 9N4JIeWWKcK10Nnr8Wm9o/U1NUc47PmXN2F5q6z10IuxQOoa73WXEi150Z5CHHKU6Wvl ud2Q== X-Received: by 10.50.85.17 with SMTP id d17mr117201igz.7.1422477654340; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 12:40:54 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.50.171.134 with SMTP id au6ls1629769igc.34.canary; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 12:40:53 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.42.236.199 with SMTP id kl7mr4589224icb.21.1422477653817; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 12:40:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from nm13-vm5.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (nm13-vm5.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com. [98.138.91.235]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q6si1489692igr.3.2015.01.28.12.40.53 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 28 Jan 2015 12:40:53 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 98.138.91.235 as permitted sender) client-ip=98.138.91.235; Received: from [98.138.100.116] by nm13.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 28 Jan 2015 20:40:53 -0000 Received: from [98.138.89.161] by tm107.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 28 Jan 2015 20:40:53 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1017.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 28 Jan 2015 20:40:53 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 166594.23607.bm@omp1017.mail.ne1.yahoo.com X-YMail-OSG: DRiOvp8VM1m218REP5CIIAzmqiYKVmecXZSZTyKZfR1gfqwNpgajCSPS3AWdNlD Urs1xFL5wUbZBaB9aaay62ukR17nu76ta9eYc7FiNI7efLsOsYy6M3XO0NnNvwUFjyGQYNAOOXrv TplJbWK5IZdVOvc33oUrQDBJOZ7k_W9g1rYxuQIw_mNx6RJ7m0wEfzmuY4Difqp.LH0.mpJXQWLF byfklRyqOaNQdf934vaq5nrUXrw8RgJZShCEK_aq7ZtCxsPeap8rUvQqyomRWH1ElDS3KL1rLCWs VH5g0cAYC4ljdvBZ__3e3sX.MoGkXqDvuKyutEqCFnTJHs3k1GcMcSJWL7t23659AU5MIisBXu88 26KOExE5A4fQ2pMRxJY6Tn8tMXeMZ4wEorMStwbn6G4T3pz6mTYH0PkiM9EbGIVzl8DAd_rrp_3t WJFPEeocAyHoYzZO4AF8q0JjDI2n2Ed61OyP0zmg9SqtOOZ85J5b_Ta670scWtXrpg4lPScyi2JC 9ZSnn3RTykuIZOC0hfIuL8rMsmA.49MtuB5TIF48tuMA0Zw5jkc5LFCKVzxFSF6El9D8skBYatb0 WPn.mzMYMoiZL3LJB1vUzRZWWwidC4UOBWzf208ZAjn1JcO_D4sYKvLrnT_iwgDMVQ5lyGm177wN 111o.DC9lMr73dsJxWnh9PbtD Received: by 98.138.105.248; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 20:40:52 +0000 Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 20:40:52 +0000 (UTC) From: "'John E Clifford' via lojban" Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" Message-ID: <441592822.1242464.1422477652226.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: References: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Questions about Lojban MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_1242463_417469751.1422477652220" Content-Length:10765 X-Original-Sender: kali9putra@yahoo.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 98.138.91.235 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=kali9putra@yahoo.com; dkim=pass header.i=@yahoo.com; dmarc=pass (p=REJECT dis=NONE) header.from=yahoo.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , X-Original-From: John E Clifford X-Spam-Score: 0.7 (/) X-Spam_score: 0.7 X-Spam_score_int: 7 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: Well, Rick, skipping over the intermediate argle-bargle of the Lojban, the fact remains that, since this is (surprisingly) grammatical nowadays, there is only one valid parse for it. There are clearly two valid parses for the English.  All of these parses are unambiguous (I suspect "ambiguous parse" is either a contradiction or just sloppy terminology).  The English sentence is ambiguous (indeed, amphibolous) precisely because it has two valid parses.  The Lojban is not, precisely because it has only one valid parse.  The uncertainty is about who or what was flying over Zurich when  I saw the plane.  For the English, this comes down to the issue of which of the two parses of the sentence trace it back to the original proposition (in my Montogovian way of putting things -- which parse was intended, otherwise). Presumably the speaker knew and even intended to tell the answer.  For the Lojban, we can leave the speaker out, apparently, since it comes down to which object actually was flying over Zurich at the time (it is not clear to me that the choices are actually limited to me and the plane here, but five idiotic cmavo in a row is beyond my limit).  The utterer of this sentence pretty clearly did not mean to say and may not even have been in a position to.  What is the same between the two is the uncertainty, its source is different in the two cases: amphiboly in one, coyness in the other. [...] Content analysis details: (0.7 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_H2 RBL: Average reputation (+2) [209.85.223.189 listed in wl.mailspike.net] -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 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_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid ------=_Part_1242463_417469751.1422477652220 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Well, Rick, skipping over the intermediate argle-bargle of the Lojban, the = fact remains that, since this is (surprisingly) grammatical nowadays, there= is only one valid parse for it. There are clearly two valid parses for the= English. =C2=A0All of these parses are unambiguous (I suspect "ambiguous p= arse" is either a contradiction or just sloppy terminology). =C2=A0The Engl= ish sentence is ambiguous (indeed, amphibolous) precisely because it has tw= o valid parses. =C2=A0The Lojban is not, precisely because it has only one = valid parse. =C2=A0The uncertainty is about who or what was flying over Zur= ich when =C2=A0I saw the plane. =C2=A0For the English, this comes down to t= he issue of which of the two parses of the sentence trace it back to the or= iginal proposition (in my Montogovian way of putting things -- which parse = was intended, otherwise). Presumably the speaker knew and even intended to = tell the answer. =C2=A0For the Lojban, we can leave the speaker out, appare= ntly, since it comes down to which object actually was flying over Zurich a= t the time (it is not clear to me that the choices are actually limited to = me and the plane here, but five idiotic cmavo in a row is beyond my limit).= =C2=A0The utterer of this sentence pretty clearly did not mean to say and = may not even have been in a position to. =C2=A0What is the same between the= two is the uncertainty, its source is different in the two cases: amphibol= y in one, coyness in the other.=20 On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 12:22 PM, Gleki Arxokuna wrote: =20 =20 2015-01-28 20:03 GMT+03:00 'John E Clifford' via lojban : =C2=A0This is a grammatical fact which gives rise to a practical uncertaint= y: which proposition is being asserted, roughly, =C2=A0"When I was flying o= ver Zurich, I saw a plane" =C2=A0or "I saw a plane when it was flying over = Zurich".=C2=A0 Lojban cannot create this uncertainty in the same way, since= it cannot produce an amphibolous sentence, so, if it wants to create the s= ame (or a practically similar) uncertainty, it must say, in effect "When ei= ther I or a plane were flying over Zurich, I saw the plane".=C2=A0=C2=A0Sam= e uncertainty, but no amphiboly. =C2=A0(It is not quite the same uncertaint= y, since tgis asserts a definite proposition, whereas the original English = failed to actually assert one, only presenting two possibilities, neither o= f them really put forward.) And even in{mi pu viska lo vinji ca lonu lo se xi vei mo'e zo'e no'a cu vof= li ga'u la tsurix}you see uncertainty but not amphiboly?What is put forward= here now? Again uncertainty? Then why can't the English sentence be percei= ved exactly the same way as creating uncertainty to which sumti the clause = links to? Why should we call the same thing "ambiguous parse" in one case and uncerta= inty in the other case?Why not say that in this aspect English is as uncert= ain as Lojban and not ambiguous? --=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. =20 --=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. ------=_Part_1242463_417469751.1422477652220 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Well, Rick, skipping over the inter= mediate argle-bargle of the Lojban, the fact remains that, since this is (s= urprisingly) grammatical nowadays, there is only one valid parse for it. Th= ere are clearly two valid parses for the English.  All of these parses= are unambiguous (I suspect "ambiguous parse" is either a contradiction or = just sloppy terminology).  The English sentence is ambiguous (indeed, = amphibolous) precisely because it has two valid parses.  The Lojban is= not, precisely because it has only one valid parse.  The uncertainty = is about who or what was flying over Zurich when  I saw the plane. &nb= sp;For the English, this comes down to the issue of which of the two parses= of the sentence trace it back to the original proposition (in my Montogovi= an way of putting things -- which parse was intended, otherwise). Presumabl= y the speaker knew and even intended to tell the answer.  For the Lojb= an, we can leave the speaker out, apparently, since it comes down to which = object actually was flying over Zurich at the time (it is not clear to me t= hat the choices are actually limited to me and the plane here, but five idi= otic cmavo in a row is beyond my limit).  The utterer of this sentence= pretty clearly did not mean to say and may not even have been in a positio= n to.  What is the same between the two is the uncertainty, its source= is different in the two cases: amphiboly in one, coyness in the other.


On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 12:22 PM, Gleki = Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:

=

2015-01-28 20:03 GMT+03:00 'John E Cliffor= d' via lojban <lojban@googlegroups.com>:
 This is a grammatical fact which = gives rise to a practical uncertainty: which proposition is being asserted,= roughly,  "When I was flying over Zurich, I saw a plane"  or "I = saw a plane when it was flying over Zurich".  Lojban cannot create thi= s uncertainty in the same way, since it cannot produce an amphibolous sente= nce, so, if it wants to create the same (or a practically similar) uncertai= nty, it must say, in effect "When either I or a plane were flying over Zuri= ch, I saw the plane".  Same uncertainty, but no amphiboly.  = (It is not quite the same uncertainty, since tgis asserts a definite propos= ition, whereas the original English failed to actually assert one, only pre= senting two possibilities, neither of them really put forward.)

And even in
{mi pu viska lo vinji ca lonu lo se xi vei mo'e zo'e no'a cu vofli = ga'u la tsurix}
you see uncert= ainty but not amphiboly?
What = is put forward here now? Again uncertainty? Then why can't the English sent= ence be perceived exactly the same way as creating uncertainty to which sum= ti the clause links to?

Why should we ca= ll the same thing "ambiguous parse" in one case and uncertainty in the othe= r case?
Why not say that in th= is aspect English is as uncertain as Lojban and not ambiguous?

--
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/o= ptout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to lojban+unsub= scribe@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 http= s://groups.google.com/d/optout.
------=_Part_1242463_417469751.1422477652220--