Received: from mail-lb0-f189.google.com ([209.85.217.189]:60152) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YGqtg-0005s3-Rw for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 07:20:45 -0800 Received: by mail-lb0-f189.google.com with SMTP id u10sf3591224lbd.6 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 07:20:37 -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=ir2g5Cl4Gql7pjKH44IS3s3MavuP8Lrdgzu2tvqSB4g=; b=Cqp8zy6gSIj7+v65T+msnBNTTZkv9vmbz83M/VZWfeFfHv0rreElLUPgqmlCpd1oYZ DBIgeoJOEW0EyADVrt4maXlSRVQafjaXepet34+wvdu3EV2PFccec0ce+z2VKcAUD/BS JZaFRPWe18nggojAGg8LC6+uykon69kfMnDrbNSUvyBmt9wZlJnDIKO/SDMrF1dGOc36 G93MXxijA4ZeLjPDcfXpErcUF+flCGLsUmlhOkrCM1Jvdu8iZEZEfWxPAuVITjZYP1u+ rqY9hGHZGZxiXeUJ0X/DODpGMgLW0z4bKi2TO+90VSI5+IRi7y/1gs/wy75SkFImjYpE Yrjw== X-Received: by 10.152.179.43 with SMTP id dd11mr11739lac.8.1422544837682; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 07:20:37 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.152.5.35 with SMTP id p3ls356865lap.49.gmail; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 07:20:36 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.152.36.168 with SMTP id r8mr180522laj.2.1422544836876; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 07:20:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-we0-x232.google.com (mail-we0-x232.google.com. [2a00:1450:400c:c03::232]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ev8si150239wib.3.2015.01.29.07.20.36 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 29 Jan 2015 07:20:36 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c03::232 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c03::232; Received: by mail-we0-x232.google.com with SMTP id k48so23660666wev.9 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 07:20:36 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.8.232 with SMTP id u8mr1933173wja.47.1422544836772; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 07:20:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.27.132.70 with HTTP; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 07:20:36 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <441592822.1242464.1422477652226.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 15:20:36 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Questions about Lojban From: And Rosta To: lojban@googlegroups.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b5d348cac4a93050dcc07a1 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:c03::232 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 29 Jan 2015 10:48, "Gleki Arxokuna" wrote: > > > > 2015-01-29 13:25 GMT+03:00 And Rosta : >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Gleki Arxokuna < gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> 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. > > > Where this ambiguity arises? [...] 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) [209.85.217.189 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 --047d7b5d348cac4a93050dcc07a1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On 29 Jan 2015 10:48, "Gleki Arxokuna" wrote: > > > > 2015-01-29 13:25 GMT+03:00 And Rosta : >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Gleki Arxokuna < gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> 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. > > > Where this ambiguity arises? I don't know if I understand your question. > Isn't it easier to state that "-ing" attaches to uncertain heads just like {calonu zo'e} does in Lojban ? No. The three syntactic structures I describe are independently warranted; they're not invented just to account for this sentence's ambiguity. Sometimes syntactically different sentences just happen to have the same phonology; that's the very definition of ambiguity. -- 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. --047d7b5d348cac4a93050dcc07a1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On 29 Jan 2015 10:48, "Gleki Arxokuna" <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>= ; wrote:
>
>
>
> 2015-01-29 13:25 GMT+03:00 And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>:
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.co= m> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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@googlegroups.com>:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> There are clearly two valid parses for the Englis= h.=C2=A0
>>>> >
>>>> > 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 contro= lled subject; in a second, it is "object complement" (predicate i= n 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 diffe= rent parses due to ambiguity of the syntactic tree?
>>
>> =C2=A0
>> Yes.
>
>
> Where this ambiguity arises?

I don't know if I understand your question.

> Isn't it easier to state that "-ing" atta= ches to uncertain heads just like {calonu zo'e} does in Lojban ?

No. The three syntactic structures I describe are independen= tly warranted; they're not invented just to account for this sentence&#= 39;s ambiguity. Sometimes syntactically different sentences just happen to = have the same phonology; that's the very definition of ambiguity.

--
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.
--047d7b5d348cac4a93050dcc07a1--