Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c00::22a as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c00::22a;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAJHgu=_1DxYjopSX2GRxBbu+syJOD47W92m6+-fBA3PncnbNvw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO7bV+hZTwiquY0GcTA0xVjg2t+QnRt_DcY+XafDJYfa10L7ow@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJHgu=_1DxYjopSX2GRxBbu+syJOD47W92m6+-fBA3PncnbNvw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 20:29:08 +0300
Message-ID: <CAO7bV+gRpGLsCU0kULtC+KQbu7b8K7qs_KDSKHWtQzj43w=RpA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] the myth of monoparsing
To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" <lojban@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043894f9bc9bb0050e326910
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:  2015-02-03 20:19 GMT+03:00 Stela Selckiku <selckiku@gmail.com>:
    > I don't understand at all how a Lojban sentence carefully phrased to >
   explicitly state a particular ambiguity seems to you to share any similar
   > basic character at all with an English sentence which has a similar > ambiguity
    simply by randomly having a chaotic collection of ambiguities as > all English
    sentences do. In Lojban you're able to unambiguously craft > exactly the
   ambiguity which matches any English ambiguity, which is rather > astonishingly
    impressive, better than anyone expected it to work before > we'd really tried
    it. It's not that Lojban's required not to have > ambiguities, or something,
    it's that you can state whatever ambiguities you > want. > > Try going the
    other way and matching the exact ambiguities from arbitrary > Lojban sentences
    in English and then say again you don't see the > difference. You can't just
    make an English sentence have exactly the > ambiguities you want in order
    to match some other language's ambiguity > structures, in English you have
    to crush together words with zillions of > parses and just hope context is
    enough to pick out the sense you meant. > Lojban isn't some rigid set of
   rules where you just get a few fixed parses > or something, it's a wonderful
    magical flexible set of rules where you get > to choose exactly what you
   want to express and what you don't. > [...] 
 
 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 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 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3      RBL: Good reputation (+3)
                             [209.85.217.188 listed in wl.mailspike.net]
  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

--f46d043894f9bc9bb0050e326910
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

2015-02-03 20:19 GMT+03:00 Stela Selckiku <selckiku@gmail.com>:

> I don't understand at all how a Lojban sentence carefully phrased to
> explicitly state a particular ambiguity seems to you to share any similar
> basic character at all with an English sentence which has a similar
> ambiguity simply by randomly having a chaotic collection of ambiguities as
> all English sentences do. In Lojban you're able to unambiguously craft
> exactly the ambiguity which matches any English ambiguity, which is rather
> astonishingly impressive, better than anyone expected it to work before
> we'd really tried it. It's not that Lojban's required not to have
> ambiguities, or something, it's that you can state whatever ambiguities you
> want.
>
> Try going the other way and matching the exact ambiguities from arbitrary
> Lojban sentences in English and then say again you don't see the
> difference. You can't just make an English sentence have exactly the
> ambiguities you want in order to match some other language's ambiguity
> structures, in English you have to crush together words with zillions of
> parses and just hope context is enough to pick out the sense you meant.
> Lojban isn't some rigid set of rules where you just get a few fixed parses
> or something, it's a wonderful magical flexible set of rules where you get
> to choose exactly what you want to express and what you don't.
>

u'e do melbi tcetce cusku

I only started this to understand how monoparsing in Lojban is different
from English.
If one sentence can be expanded into two distinct syntactic trees by
applying precise numbers instead of imprecise {mo'e zo'e} then it's still
monoparsing of course.

What makes me wonder is why English can't be called monoparsed. May be
because those who described it that way felt that polyparsing was the only
reasonable explanation?

Probably it doesn't even matter and some better phrasing of how Lojban
really differs should be made. Probably, even based on your reply in this
thread.

At least, this example led to some new ways of encoding several syntactic
trees using one sentence. First, I accepted pycyn's criticism by removing
OR operator and precise numbers, then And Rosta told that adverbial
constructs were not the only possible explanation so I wrote this last
translation.


> <3,
> selkik
>
>  --
> 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.

--f46d043894f9bc9bb0050e326910
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">2015-02-03 20:19 GMT+03:00 Stela Selckiku <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:selckiku@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">selckiku@gmail.com</a>&gt;=
</span>:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;bo=
rder-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">I don&#39;t und=
erstand at all how a Lojban sentence carefully phrased to explicitly state =
a particular ambiguity seems to you to share any similar basic character at=
 all with an English sentence which has a similar ambiguity simply by rando=
mly having a chaotic collection of ambiguities as all English sentences do.=
 In Lojban you&#39;re able to unambiguously craft exactly the ambiguity whi=
ch matches any English ambiguity, which is rather astonishingly impressive,=
 better than anyone expected it to work before we&#39;d really tried it. It=
&#39;s not that Lojban&#39;s required not to have ambiguities, or something=
, it&#39;s that you can state whatever ambiguities you want. <br><br>Try go=
ing the other way and matching the exact ambiguities from arbitrary Lojban =
sentences in English and then say again you don&#39;t see the difference. Y=
ou can&#39;t just make an English sentence have exactly the ambiguities you=
 want in order to match some other language&#39;s ambiguity structures, in =
English you have to crush together words with zillions of parses and just h=
ope context is enough to pick out the sense you meant. Lojban isn&#39;t som=
e rigid set of rules where you just get a few fixed parses or something, it=
&#39;s a wonderful magical flexible set of rules where you get to choose ex=
actly what you want to express and what you don&#39;t. <br></div></blockquo=
te><div><br></div><div>u&#39;e do melbi tcetce cusku=C2=A0</div><div><br></=
div><div>I only started this to understand how monoparsing in Lojban is dif=
ferent from English.</div><div>If one sentence can be expanded into two dis=
tinct syntactic trees by applying precise numbers instead of imprecise {mo&=
#39;e zo&#39;e} then it&#39;s still monoparsing of course.</div><div><br></=
div><div>What makes me wonder is why English can&#39;t be called monoparsed=
. May be because those who described it that way felt that polyparsing was =
the only reasonable explanation?</div><div><br></div><div>Probably it doesn=
&#39;t even matter and some better phrasing of how Lojban really differs sh=
ould be made. Probably, even based on your reply in this thread.</div><div>=
<br></div><div>At least, this example led to some new ways of encoding seve=
ral syntactic trees using one sentence. First, I accepted pycyn&#39;s criti=
cism by removing OR operator and precise numbers, then And Rosta told that =
adverbial constructs were not the only possible explanation so I wrote this=
 last translation.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" st=
yle=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div =
dir=3D"ltr"><br>&lt;3, <br>selkik<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888=
888"><br><br></font></span></div><span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888=
888">

<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>
</font></span></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 />

--f46d043894f9bc9bb0050e326910--