Received: from mail-lb0-f187.google.com ([209.85.217.187]:36698) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YGmIH-0001q9-NF for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 02:25:50 -0800 Received: by mail-lb0-f187.google.com with SMTP id z12sf2678775lbi.4 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 02:25:42 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help :list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=MNXKQgBv2LV6QEctGDwD6Dv6c8ZBCPCXAXhB+eow8fM=; b=BxTeteUKxWyDX7vqoF3UjOlOp/nNkBygMWJy6B0gdq/Yn+tz9HOugLagwXNz1DmhmW /bx1XBdChN+l6ev8oUWlf3NZfCeI1AfsZWDpk2yHEUcWCnXL6D6Tjkv7HXM9l/oCNwSe 9wFe6Vpu775A+UPYCFaWzZTsmD3JQbpAHZhyIifcU0eQ9Q+aMaaQy83GyESn/wYh7q1D SM+JjQSoPpiV5eRXpG84wrlryX9jY7jQtwi0sL5+DcFo/iFwtOoEwuWjnwST4ZUE64v9 Go58CLlb1LabOF2q87nmzJ48eCWOavq7Lu4UcEhfsd+YkqyuomO4uyfMOJAqO4wBi9ia tMkQ== X-Received: by 10.152.236.39 with SMTP id ur7mr157954lac.26.1422527142558; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 02:25:42 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.152.197.2 with SMTP id iq2ls321400lac.2.gmail; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 02:25:41 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.152.87.15 with SMTP id t15mr1642627laz.9.1422527141571; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 02:25:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wi0-x22a.google.com (mail-wi0-x22a.google.com. [2a00:1450:400c:c05::22a]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v6si95425wiz.2.2015.01.29.02.25.41 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 29 Jan 2015 02:25:41 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::22a as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c05::22a; Received: by mail-wi0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id bs8so7815200wib.1 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 02:25:41 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.181.11.136 with SMTP id ei8mr2726323wid.71.1422527141426; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 02:25:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.27.132.70 with HTTP; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 02:25:41 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <441592822.1242464.1422477652226.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 10:25:41 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Questions about Lojban From: And Rosta To: lojban@googlegroups.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043bdfcaf2bcfe050dc7e8ec X-Original-Sender: and.rosta@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::22a as permitted sender) smtp.mail=and.rosta@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.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-Spam-Score: 0.8 (/) 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 Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Gleki Arxokuna wrote: > > > 2015-01-29 10:35 GMT+03:00 And Rosta : > >> >> On 29 Jan 2015 06:38, "Gleki Arxokuna" >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > 2015-01-28 23:40 GMT+03:00 'John E Clifford' via lojban < >> lojban@googlegroups.com>: >> >> >> >> There are clearly two valid parses for the English. >> > >> > Why are you saying that the English sentence has two parses? >> >> Because it does have two (in fact, three) parses. In one, "flying" is an >> adverbial adjunct (of "saw") with controlled subject; in a second, it is >> "object complement" (predicate in a small-clausal complement of "saw"); in >> a third, it is adjunct of "plane". >> > > Of course, this can be a rival explanation but are those different parses > due to ambiguity of the syntactic tree? > [...] 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) [209.85.217.187 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 (and.rosta[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 --f46d043bdfcaf2bcfe050dc7e8ec Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Gleki Arxokuna wrote: > > > 2015-01-29 10:35 GMT+03:00 And Rosta : > >> >> On 29 Jan 2015 06:38, "Gleki Arxokuna" >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > 2015-01-28 23:40 GMT+03:00 'John E Clifford' via lojban < >> lojban@googlegroups.com>: >> >> >> >> There are clearly two valid parses for the English. >> > >> > Why are you saying that the English sentence has two parses? >> >> Because it does have two (in fact, three) parses. In one, "flying" is an >> adverbial adjunct (of "saw") with controlled subject; in a second, it is >> "object complement" (predicate in a small-clausal complement of "saw"); in >> a third, it is adjunct of "plane". >> > > Of course, this can be a rival explanation but are those different parses > due to ambiguity of the syntactic tree? > Yes. > It's more about polysemy of -ing, not about syntactic ambiguity. > No. The ambiguity is syntactic. -Ing has no polysemy; it is merely the default inflectional form of the verb. > E.g. in Russian this confusion never arises since it uses several endings > instead of polysemous "-ing". > It is seldom valid to reason about the analysis of one language by relying on observations of a different language. > So are we talking about polysemy now? > No. And. -- 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. --f46d043bdfcaf2bcfe050dc7e8ec Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

= On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name= @gmail.com> wrote:

<= div class=3D"gmail_extra">
2015-01-29 10:35 GMT+03:00 And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>:


On 29 Jan 2015 06:38, "Gleki Arxokuna" <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>= ; wrote:
>
>
>
> 2015-01-28 23:40 GMT+03:00 'John E Clifford' via lojban <lojban@googlegro= ups.com>:
>>
 >> There are clearly two valid parses for the English.=C2=A0
>
 > Why are you saying that the English sentence has two parses?

Because it does have two (in fact, three) parses. In one, &q= uot;flying" is an adverbial adjunct (of "saw") with controll= ed subject; in a second, it is "object complement" (predicate in = a small-clausal complement of "saw"); in a third, it is adjunct o= f "plane".


Of cou= rse, this can be a rival explanation but are those different parses due to = ambiguity of the syntactic tree?
= =C2=A0
Yes.
=C2=A0
It's more= about polysemy of -ing, not about syntactic ambiguity.
=C2=A0
No. The ambiguity is syntactic. -Ing= has no polysemy; it is merely the default inflectional form of the verb.
=C2=A0
E.g. in Russian this confusion never= arises since it uses several endings instead of polysemous "-ing"= ;.
=C2=A0
It is seldom v= alid to reason about the analysis of one language by relying on observation= s of a different language.

=C2=A0
So a= re we talking about polysemy now?
= =C2=A0
No.
=C2=A0
=C2=A0
And.
=

--
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.
--f46d043bdfcaf2bcfe050dc7e8ec--