Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::234 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c05::234;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <441592822.1242464.1422477652226.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <CAO7bV+hCaoyETCeVJufDxBrgnaKgqfT1eOLFFduYWadScpO2RQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <441592822.1242464.1422477652226.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
From: Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 09:38:02 +0300
Message-ID: <CAO7bV+iM0Qkc_N9ABZxfh8y193jY-P4NhX-+3PQgL7Uzmtp2-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Questions about Lojban
To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" <lojban@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bfceb44fda187050dc4bb7a
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:  2015-01-28 23:40 GMT+03:00 'John E Clifford' via lojban <
   lojban@googlegroups.com>: > 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.
    > [...] 
 
 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)
                             [209.85.212.184 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
                             (gleki.is.my.name[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

--047d7bfceb44fda187050dc4bb7a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

2015-01-28 23:40 GMT+03:00 'John E Clifford' via lojban <
lojban@googlegroups.com>:

> 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.
>

Why are you saying that the English sentence has two parses? Why dont you
think that it's just the same {zo'e} in the English sentence that makes it
vague, not amphibolous, who is flying thus leaving it to context?

"I saw a plane when [zo'e was] flying over Zurich"?
Why don't you want accept this interpretation of this shortened version of
the English sentence?


>  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).
>

But calling them "idiotic" is completely another matter connected with not
understanding what this Lojban sentence actually means.

Besides, the number of cmavo means nothing. I can invent a new cmavo as a
shortcut for them. Do you need a concise language? Then inventing a short
cmavo will solve your problem. In fact in Modern Lojban they invented
{xo'e} instead of {mo'e zo'e} and in some experimental grammars {vei} isn't
needed at all. Thus you get {lo se xi xo'e no'a}, i.e. three syllables
shorter.


{lo se xi vei mo'e zo'e no'a} means that the first slot of
"someone/something was flying over Zurich" is referred to some slot of the
outer clause ("I saw a plane") but to which slot it is related is not
stated and can resolved by context and common sense.

And this is exactly how I perceive the original English sentence.

May be the myth of "monoparsing" arises due to insufficient usage of
Lojban? I have no clue but these examples don't convince me in that English
has ambiguity.


 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.
>

Both in English and in Lojban I would use {zo'e} letting the listener guess
who was flying over Zurich. It's no different from {mi prami do} meaning
{mi ba'o prami do} in certain contexts.
I saw a plane when I was flying over Zurich => I saw a plane flying over
Zurich.
I saw a plane when it was flying over Zurich => I saw a plane flying over
Zurich.

Isn't it the same "coyness" or more precisely Gricean omitting superfluous
words the true value of which can be extracted from context anyway?


>
>   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 Clifford' 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 this uncertainty in the same way, since it cannot
> produce an amphibolous sentence, so, if it wants to create the same (or a
> practically similar) uncertainty, it must say, in effect "When either I or
> a plane were flying over Zurich, I saw the plane".  Same uncertainty, but
> no amphiboly.  (It is not quite the same uncertainty, since tgis asserts a
> definite proposition, whereas the original English failed to actually
> assert one, only presenting 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 uncertainty but not amphiboly?
> What is put forward here now? Again uncertainty? Then why can't the
> English sentence be perceived 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
> uncertainty in the other case?
> Why not say that in this 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
> email 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.
>
>
>    --
> 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
> email 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.
>

-- 
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 email 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.

--047d7bfceb44fda187050dc4bb7a
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te">2015-01-28 23:40 GMT+03:00 &#39;John E Clifford&#39; via lojban <span d=
ir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com" target=3D"_blank"=
>lojban@googlegroups.com</a>&gt;</span>:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quot=
e" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-colo=
r:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div styl=
e=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:HelveticaNeue,&#39;Helvetica Neue&#39;,He=
lvetica,Arial,&#39;Lucida Grande&#39;,sans-serif;font-size:16px;background-=
color:rgb(255,255,255)"><div dir=3D"ltr"><span>Well, Rick, skipping over th=
e intermediate argle-bargle of the Lojban, the fact remains that, since thi=
s is (surprisingly) grammatical nowadays, there is only one valid parse for=
 it. There are clearly two valid parses for the English.=C2=A0 All of these=
 parses are unambiguous (I suspect &quot;ambiguous parse&quot; is either a =
contradiction or just sloppy terminology).=C2=A0 The English sentence is am=
biguous (indeed, amphibolous) precisely because it has two valid parses.=C2=
=A0 The Lojban is not, precisely because it has only one valid parse.=C2=A0=
 The uncertainty is about who or what was flying over Zurich when =C2=A0I s=
aw the plane.=C2=A0 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, othe=
rwise). Presumably the speaker knew and even intended to tell the answer.</=
span></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Why are you saying =
that the English sentence has two parses? Why dont you think that it&#39;s =
just the same {zo&#39;e} in the English sentence that makes it vague, not a=
mphibolous, who is flying thus leaving it to context?</div><div><br></div><=
div>&quot;I saw a plane when [zo&#39;e was] flying over Zurich&quot;?</div>=
<div>Why don&#39;t you want accept this interpretation of this shortened ve=
rsion of the English sentence?</div><div><br></div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockq=
uote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-wi=
dth:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-=
left:1ex"><div><div style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:HelveticaNeue,=
9;Helvetica Neue&#39;,Helvetica,Arial,&#39;Lucida Grande&#39;,sans-serif;fo=
nt-size:16px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><div dir=3D"ltr"><span> =C2=
=A0For 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 no=
t clear to me that the choices are actually limited to me and the plane her=
e, but five idiotic cmavo in a row is beyond my limit).</span></div></div><=
/div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>But calling them &quot;idiotic&quot; =
is completely another matter connected with not understanding what this Loj=
ban sentence actually means.</div><div><br></div><div>Besides, the number o=
f cmavo means nothing. I can invent a new cmavo as a shortcut for them. Do =
you need a concise language? Then inventing a short cmavo will solve your p=
roblem. In fact in Modern Lojban they invented {xo&#39;e} instead of {mo=
9;e zo&#39;e} and in some experimental grammars {vei} isn&#39;t needed at a=
ll. Thus you get {lo se xi xo&#39;e no&#39;a}, i.e. three syllables shorter=
.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>{lo se xi vei mo&#39;e zo&#39;e n=
o&#39;a} means that the first slot of &quot;someone/something was flying ov=
er Zurich&quot; is referred to some slot of the outer clause (&quot;I saw a=
 plane&quot;) but to which slot it is related is not stated and can resolve=
d by context and common sense.<br></div><div><br></div><div>And this is exa=
ctly how I perceive the original English sentence.</div><div><br></div><div=
>May be the myth of &quot;monoparsing&quot; arises due to insufficient usag=
e of Lojban? I have no clue but these examples don&#39;t convince me in tha=
t English has ambiguity.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote cla=
ss=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;=
border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex=
"><div><div style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:HelveticaNeue,&#39;Helvet=
ica Neue&#39;,Helvetica,Arial,&#39;Lucida Grande&#39;,sans-serif;font-size:=
16px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><div dir=3D"ltr"><span> =C2=A0The u=
tterer of this sentence pretty clearly did not mean to say and may not even=
 have been in a position to.=C2=A0 What is the same between the two is the =
uncertainty, its source is different in the two cases: amphiboly in one, co=
yness in the other.</span></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><di=
v>Both in English and in Lojban I would use {zo&#39;e} letting the listener=
 guess who was flying over Zurich. It&#39;s no different from {mi prami do}=
 meaning {mi ba&#39;o prami do} in certain contexts.</div><div>I saw a plan=
e when I was flying over Zurich =3D&gt;=C2=A0I saw a plane flying over Zuri=
ch.</div><div>I saw a plane when it was flying over Zurich =3D&gt; I saw a =
plane flying over Zurich.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Isn&#39;t it the sam=
e &quot;coyness&quot; or more precisely Gricean omitting superfluous words =
the true value of which can be extracted from context anyway?</div><div><br=
></div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px=
 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);bor=
der-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0);=
font-family:HelveticaNeue,&#39;Helvetica Neue&#39;,Helvetica,Arial,&#39;Luc=
ida Grande&#39;,sans-serif;font-size:16px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)=
"> <div><br><br></div><div style=3D"display:block"> <div style=3D"font-fami=
ly:HelveticaNeue,&#39;Helvetica Neue&#39;,Helvetica,Arial,&#39;Lucida Grand=
e&#39;,sans-serif;font-size:16px"> <div style=3D"font-family:HelveticaNeue,=
&#39;Helvetica Neue&#39;,Helvetica,Arial,&#39;Lucida Grande&#39;,sans-serif=
;font-size:16px"><div><div class=3D"h5"> <div dir=3D"ltr"> <font face=3D"Ar=
ial"> On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 12:22 PM, Gleki Arxokuna &lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">gleki.is.my.name@g=
mail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br> </font> </div>  <br><br> </div></div><div><div>=
<div><div><div class=3D"h5"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><br clear=3D"none"><div>2=
015-01-28 20:03 GMT+03:00 &#39;John E Clifford&#39; via lojban <span dir=3D=
"ltr">&lt;<a rel=3D"nofollow" shape=3D"rect" href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegr=
oups.com" target=3D"_blank">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>&gt;</span>:<br clea=
r=3D"none"><blockquote style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:=
1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left=
:1ex">=C2=A0This is a grammatical fact which gives rise to a practical unce=
rtainty: which proposition is being asserted, roughly, =C2=A0&quot;When I w=
as flying over Zurich, I saw a plane&quot; =C2=A0or &quot;I saw a plane whe=
n it was flying over Zurich&quot;.=C2=A0 Lojban cannot create this uncertai=
nty in the same way, since it cannot produce an amphibolous sentence, so, i=
f it wants to create the same (or a practically similar) uncertainty, it mu=
st say, in effect &quot;When either I or a plane were flying over Zurich, I=
 saw the plane&quot;.=C2=A0=C2=A0Same uncertainty, but no amphiboly. =C2=A0=
(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.)</blockquote=
></div><br clear=3D"none">And even in</div><div>{mi pu viska lo vinji ca lo=
nu lo se xi vei mo&#39;e zo&#39;e no&#39;a cu vofli ga&#39;u la tsurix}</di=
v><div>you see uncertainty but not amphiboly?</div><div>What is put forward=
 here now? Again uncertainty? Then why can&#39;t the English sentence be pe=
rceived exactly the same way as creating uncertainty to which sumti the cla=
use links to?</div><div><br clear=3D"none"></div><div>Why should we call th=
e same thing &quot;ambiguous parse&quot; in one case and uncertainty in the=
 other case?</div><div>Why not say that in this aspect English is as uncert=
ain as Lojban and not ambiguous?</div><div><div><br clear=3D"none"></div></=
div></div></div></div><span class=3D""><div>

<div></div>

-- <br clear=3D"none">
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br clear=3D"none">
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a rel=3D"nofollow" shape=3D"rect" href=3D"mailto:lojban+unsubscrib=
e@googlegroups.com" target=3D"_blank">lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</=
a>.<br clear=3D"none">
To post to this group, send email to <a rel=3D"nofollow" shape=3D"rect" hre=
f=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com" target=3D"_blank">lojban@googlegroups.=
com</a>.<br clear=3D"none">
Visit this group at <a rel=3D"nofollow" shape=3D"rect" href=3D"http://group=
s.google.com/group/lojban" target=3D"_blank">http://groups.google.com/group=
/lojban</a>.<br clear=3D"none">
For more options, visit <a rel=3D"nofollow" shape=3D"rect" href=3D"https://=
groups.google.com/d/optout" target=3D"_blank">https://groups.google.com/d/o=
ptout</a>.<br clear=3D"none"></div></span></div></div><br><br></div>  </div=
> </div>  </div> </div></div><div class=3D""><div class=3D"h5">

<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" target=3D"_b=
lank">lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.=
com" target=3D"_blank">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban" targe=
t=3D"_blank">http://groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br>
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/optout" targ=
et=3D"_blank">https://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>

<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 />

--047d7bfceb44fda187050dc4bb7a--