Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c03::233 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c03::233;
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 11:42:32 +0300
Message-ID: <CAO7bV+hZTwiquY0GcTA0xVjg2t+QnRt_DcY+XafDJYfa10L7ow@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: [lojban] the myth of monoparsing
To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" <lojban@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec53d5b4b757a0e050e2b0e60
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:  Since the original post on monoparsing as something unique
    or defining feature of Lojban provided no examples on how this monoparsing
    differs from English here is once again my full understanding using one example
    that is monoparsed both in English and Lojban: "Fred saw a plane flying over
    Zurich" can have several meanings: 1. Attach as a relative clause to the
   first place: Fred (who was flying over Zurich) saw a plane. 2. Attach as a
    relative clause to the second place: Fred saw a plane (that was flying over
    Zurich). 3. Adverb-like clause (raising, attachment to the first place implied).
    Fred saw a plane (while he was) flying over Zurich. 4. Adverb-like clause
    (raising, attachment to the second place implied). Fred saw a plane (while
    it was) flying over Zurich. [...] 
 
 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)
                             [209.85.212.183 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

--bcaec53d5b4b757a0e050e2b0e60
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Since the original post on monoparsing as something unique or defining
feature of Lojban provided no examples on how this monoparsing differs from
English here is once again my full understanding using one example that is
monoparsed both in English and Lojban:
"Fred saw a plane flying over Zurich" can have several meanings:
1. Attach as a relative clause to the first place:
Fred (who was flying over Zurich) saw a plane.
2. Attach as a relative clause to the second place:
Fred saw a plane (that was flying over Zurich).
3. Adverb-like clause (raising, attachment to the first place implied).
Fred saw a plane (while he was) flying over Zurich.
4. Adverb-like clause (raising, attachment to the second place implied).
Fred saw a plane (while it was) flying over Zurich.

Now all those examples have
a. One phonetic realization in English
b. Have several meanings.
c. They are NOT independent from the semantics and place structure of the
verb "saw" (since the result will differ e.g. with verbs having another
amount of places).

Can this be called syntactic ambiguity? You decide.
But in Lojban all of those example can be similarly expressed using one
phonetic realisation:

{la fred pu viska lo vinji do'e lo se xi vei mo'e zo'e nei poi vofli ga'u
la tsurix}

Two important notes:
I. Raising can appear when a Lojban tag is moved from {SUMTI ne TAG SUMTI}
position to the main clause, e.g.:
{mi ne sepi'o lo forca cu citka} => {mi pilno lo forca lo nu citka}
However, according to CLL it's possible to use it in the main clause: {mi
citka sepi'o lo forca}. Thus CLL allows for raising.
This isn't formalized in any way in CLL but this allows for 3. and 4.
understandings of the English phrase.

II. Replacing {do'e} with {fa xi xo'e} can be possible but again "double
FA" isn't described anywhere in CLL.

Since I and II aren't officially described and/or banned/allowed I have no
idea why Lojban is said to have monoparsing different from the one in
English.

Some actions/research I saw:

A. Double standards in interpreting English examples while not interpreting
Lojban translations thus leading to a false conclusion that Lojban is
different from English in parsing.
B. Providing no examples
C. Calling my translations "tricky/idiotic/stupid". This one is a biased
opinion. Everything that is allowed in Lojban is neither tricky nor
idiotic. What seems idiotic now can be found very useful in future.
D. Ignoring certain parts of Lojban. For sure, certain subsets of Lojban
can not allow for such translations but then it should be clearly stated
that not Lojban but some part of it has certain features (which) and how
they differ from English.
E. Such links as http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=17431 don't
provide nice examples since they mix polysemy with possible multiparsing.

-- 
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.

--bcaec53d5b4b757a0e050e2b0e60
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Since the original post on monoparsing as something unique=
 or defining feature of Lojban provided no examples on how this monoparsing=
 differs from English here is once again my full understanding using one ex=
ample that is monoparsed both in English and Lojban:<div>&quot;Fred saw a p=
lane flying over Zurich&quot; can have several meanings:</div><div>1. Attac=
h as a relative clause to the first place:</div><div>Fred (who was flying o=
ver Zurich) saw a plane.</div><div>2. Attach as a relative clause to the se=
cond place:</div><div><div>Fred saw a plane (that was flying over Zurich).<=
/div></div><div>3. Adverb-like clause (raising, attachment to the first pla=
ce implied).</div><div>Fred saw a plane (while he was) flying over Zurich.<=
br></div><div>4. Adverb-like clause (raising, attachment to the second plac=
e implied).</div><div>Fred saw a plane (while it was) flying over Zurich.<b=
r></div><div><br></div><div>Now all those examples have</div><div>a. One ph=
onetic realization in English</div><div>b. Have several meanings.</div><div=
>c. They are NOT independent from the semantics and place structure of the =
verb &quot;saw&quot; (since the result will differ e.g. with verbs having a=
nother amount of places).</div><div><br></div><div>Can this be called synta=
ctic ambiguity? You decide.</div><div>But in Lojban all of those example ca=
n be similarly expressed using one phonetic realisation:</div><div><br></di=
v><div>{la fred pu viska lo vinji do&#39;e lo se xi vei mo&#39;e zo&#39;e n=
ei poi vofli ga&#39;u la tsurix}</div><div><br></div><div>Two important not=
es:</div><div>I. Raising can appear when a Lojban tag is moved from {SUMTI =
ne TAG SUMTI} position to the main clause, e.g.:</div><div>{mi ne sepi&#39;=
o lo forca cu citka} =3D&gt; {mi pilno lo forca lo nu citka}</div><div>Howe=
ver, according to CLL it&#39;s possible to use it in the main clause: {mi c=
itka sepi&#39;o lo forca}. Thus CLL allows for raising.</div><div>This isn&=
#39;t formalized in any way in CLL but this allows for 3. and 4. understand=
ings of the English phrase.<br></div><div><br></div><div>II. Replacing {do&=
#39;e} with {fa xi xo&#39;e} can be possible but again &quot;double FA&quot=
; isn&#39;t described anywhere in CLL.</div><div><br></div><div>Since I and=
 II aren&#39;t officially described and/or banned/allowed I have no idea wh=
y Lojban is said to have monoparsing different from the one in English.</di=
v><div><br></div><div>Some actions/research I saw:</div><div><br></div><div=
>A. Double standards in interpreting English examples while not interpretin=
g Lojban translations thus leading to a false conclusion that Lojban is dif=
ferent from English in parsing.</div><div>B. Providing no examples</div><di=
v>C. Calling my translations &quot;tricky/idiotic/stupid&quot;. This one is=
 a biased opinion. Everything that is allowed in Lojban is neither tricky n=
or idiotic. What seems idiotic now can be found very useful in future.</div=
><div>D. Ignoring certain parts of Lojban. For sure, certain subsets of Loj=
ban can not allow for such translations but then it should be clearly state=
d that not Lojban but some part of it has certain features (which) and how =
they differ from English.</div><div>E. Such links as=C2=A0<a href=3D"http:/=
/languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3D17431">http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu=
/nll/?p=3D17431</a> don&#39;t provide nice examples since they mix polysemy=
 with possible multiparsing.</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 />

--bcaec53d5b4b757a0e050e2b0e60--