Received: from mail-pa0-f59.google.com ([209.85.220.59]:64573) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YIhu5-0008Vu-F5 for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 10:08:50 -0800 Received: by mail-pa0-f59.google.com with SMTP id kx10sf5104949pab.4 for ; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 10:08:43 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=date:from:reply-to:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version:content-type:content-length:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe; bh=B68O5R/yARNFH1H/UJwnkjt3FFHx4Frgjzi1bAvONoY=; b=lfHDfuwEmPpNcGEqPJqANAAJIcK9sPgvRgOe2ZcoQG5BE1Vwt55nUANdpFqWmaVTuM +2Nb71PjaDUIErvcfQ0O2PspYoK6dZSe8RBFphFMJ1blIWLx13/KU39pKF5xF821lHAQ WfdpyIVscoJD8eU5cfSpDce4UpeaOhsBZZRniLIGOKFTOFtaqkSYsHdaGCTUci+A/zhd M+Q1yPhRvpX6Nl4ZLu0QE9leq1u9Lv7E7yXKqFeJ6QPnrJNc4T4hYNOyAs5coTmLSxNN Z2cEZ5NtG8PEOBClTer1GWRKpnj8WzL8uq5ObdDEqiyjVakOt2FZSaw3VEiOUYiUpB7t 1qOg== X-Received: by 10.50.253.1 with SMTP id zw1mr274589igc.11.1422986923291; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 10:08:43 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.107.14.19 with SMTP id 19ls2558646ioo.49.gmail; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 10:08:42 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.42.157.134 with SMTP id d6mr21706357icx.27.1422986922807; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 10:08:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from nm29-vm6.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (nm29-vm6.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com. [98.138.91.122]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id g3si1329272igr.2.2015.02.03.10.08.42 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 03 Feb 2015 10:08:42 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 98.138.91.122 as permitted sender) client-ip=98.138.91.122; Received: from [98.138.101.131] by nm29.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Feb 2015 18:08:42 -0000 Received: from [98.138.88.238] by tm19.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Feb 2015 18:08:42 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1038.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Feb 2015 18:08:42 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 369504.9065.bm@omp1038.mail.ne1.yahoo.com X-YMail-OSG: 6_UZCxEVM1kSF.GEz8nmmZzqSRJcsw06Rx8ymV0cegZCl6Bn2C3KL0O6Yg9eVGK j27wcJLsESAVzYRtjDPIL4ozQPhq8aZtxTSpU1ta3GTdVvIbwyjJ6Em5ExA.cSMNqcHPPYUYOHeK Df4zvz1kl3IVaSvCsKrpu1hJNCz3Pa42jsbDcUm7S5SkxXOIl32FjKXCnJ.pPYb6KXEar.1PDvLu Q11bIduERtrKZQl7shHkE8krJ1gZ3scnBuJzZD8YufKobo5zn_71wdrG4Ml3bx2Ia6BeC60eMOXX 5nEizm5WfIzmr4KvtFC7bg_kOg5Ce493KgsIhN22kz.oOIJsigulwGI4e89zKvUonVq1sxZAn1ep YfAjm_2TSpxZF6nLLsVatJCQnFnDU6f928V7OHuh8ddHe867w3ctU0qqSk.Lz7tETlPaVNHhgP4p sDwPDtY6rx7RxeHsAZWlur_F3Y0.ujwULgblC373vls4rKkhCncdahu1nOzREmy22fB6Y.wKgSFh Eds4gtjTizcM3..ZNZfq4zv7siCCBOTNf_eSWG6ZQcyrXL_D8_jOP1MF74vMxgNKSbHDlrE70TxX dKSt_geues6EsDp.Q84BerYuR0GDPtE0zv6iUM7gukJi6OjShqRJI7RERfqOzk.qWdghPCqrzGcY scumcv.G15skh_I2T21OdQL_S Received: by 98.138.105.253; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 18:08:41 +0000 Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 18:08:41 +0000 (UTC) From: "'John E Clifford' via lojban" Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" Message-ID: <1186121403.1012722.1422986921527.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: References: Subject: Re: [lojban] the myth of monoparsing MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_1012721_1464787340.1422986921520" Content-Length: 14866 X-Original-Sender: kali9putra@yahoo.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 98.138.91.122 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=kali9putra@yahoo.com; dkim=pass header.i=@yahoo.com; dmarc=pass (p=REJECT dis=NONE) header.from=yahoo.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-Original-From: John E Clifford X-Spam-Score: 0.7 (/) X-Spam_score: 0.7 X-Spam_score_int: 7 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: I remain unclear about the point of all this. Â It appears that the ambiguity of "ambiguity" is at the heart of the matter. Â Lojban claims to be anamphibolous, free from *syntactic* ambiguity. Â That is, every valid Lojban sentence has exactly one parse (and, furthermore, is the correct one, but this is not yet examined, let alone claimed). Â This does not prevent (or claim to) *semantic* ambiguity, where a word or phrase has more than one meaning (in some sense -- another source of problems) even when all the syntactic information remains the same, nor *referential* ambiguity, where the meaning of an expression underdetermines it referent (the classic "Flash strode up to Ming. Â He struck him") Â And there are probably more varieties. Â Any of these can lead us to map a sentence on to a set of more explicit propositions (pronouns replaced by names, say, times and places fixed, and so on) which constitute the range of the ambiguity of the sentence, however generated. Â The sample English sentence generates range of four propositions (that we are concerned with at the moment) using only syntactic ambiguity. Â It is claimed that the given Lojban sentence (or one like it in all relevant ways) generates the same range of ambiguities without semantic ambiguity (since it is a Lojban sentence), thus using referential or semantic ambiguities -- or some other sort not yet discussed. That is an interesting trick, especially if, as appears to be claimed, it can always be done in Lojban. Â But I don't see what it has to do with monoparsing (except that it is assumed in the claim). [...] Content analysis details: (0.7 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_H2 RBL: Average reputation (+2) [209.85.220.59 listed in wl.mailspike.net] -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 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_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid ------=_Part_1012721_1464787340.1422986921520 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I remain unclear about the point of all this. =C2=A0It appears that the amb= iguity of "ambiguity" is at the heart of the matter. =C2=A0Lojban claims to= be anamphibolous, free from *syntactic* ambiguity. =C2=A0That is, every va= lid Lojban sentence has exactly one parse (and, furthermore, is the correct= one, but this is not yet examined, let alone claimed). =C2=A0This does not= prevent (or claim to) *semantic* ambiguity, where a word or phrase has mor= e than one meaning (in some sense -- another source of problems) even when = all the syntactic information remains the same, nor *referential* ambiguity= , where the meaning of an expression underdetermines it referent (the class= ic "Flash strode up to Ming. =C2=A0He struck him") =C2=A0And there are prob= ably more varieties. =C2=A0Any of these can lead us to map a sentence on to= a set of more explicit propositions (pronouns replaced by names, say, time= s and places fixed, and so on) which constitute the range of the ambiguity = of the sentence, however generated. =C2=A0The sample English sentence gener= ates range of four propositions (that we are concerned with at the moment) = using only syntactic ambiguity. =C2=A0It is claimed that the given Lojban s= entence (or one like it in all relevant ways) generates the same range of a= mbiguities without semantic ambiguity (since it is a Lojban sentence), thus= using referential or semantic ambiguities -- or some other sort not yet di= scussed. That is an interesting trick, especially if, as appears to be clai= med, it can always be done in Lojban. =C2=A0But I don't see what it has to = do with monoparsing (except that it is assumed in the claim).=20 On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 11:29 AM, Gleki Arxokuna wrote: =20 =20 2015-02-03 20:19 GMT+03:00 Stela Selckiku : I don't understand at all how a Lojban sentence carefully phrased to explic= itly state a particular ambiguity seems to you to share any similar basic c= haracter at all with an English sentence which has a similar ambiguity simp= ly by randomly having a chaotic collection of ambiguities as all English se= ntences do. In Lojban you're able to unambiguously craft exactly the ambigu= ity which matches any English ambiguity, which is rather astonishingly impr= essive, 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.=20 Try going the other way and matching the exact ambiguities from arbitrary L= ojban 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 w= ant in order to match some other language's ambiguity structures, in Englis= h you have to crush together words with zillions of parses and just hope co= ntext is enough to pick out the sense you meant. Lojban isn't some rigid se= t of rules where you just get a few fixed parses or something, it's a wonde= rful magical flexible set of rules where you get to choose exactly what you= want to express and what you don't.=20 u'e do melbi tcetce cusku=C2=A0 I only started this to understand how monoparsing in Lojban is different fr= om English.If one sentence can be expanded into two distinct syntactic tree= s by applying precise numbers instead of imprecise {mo'e zo'e} then it's st= ill monoparsing of course. What makes me wonder is why English can't be called monoparsed. May be beca= use those who described it that way felt that polyparsing was the only reas= onable explanation? Probably it doesn't even matter and some better phrasing of how Lojban real= ly differs should be made. Probably, even based on your reply in this threa= d. At least, this example led to some new ways of encoding several syntactic t= rees using one sentence. First, I accepted pycyn's criticism by removing OR= operator and precise numbers, then And Rosta told that adverbial construct= s were not the only possible explanation so I wrote this last translation. <3,=20 selkik --=20 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 e= mail 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. --=20 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 e= mail 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. =20 --=20 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 e= mail 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. ------=_Part_1012721_1464787340.1422986921520 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I remain unclear about the point = of all this.  It appears that the ambiguity of "ambiguity" is at the h= eart of the matter.  Lojban claims to be anamphibolous, free from *syn= tactic* ambiguity.  That is, every valid Lojban sentence has exactly o= ne parse (and, furthermore, is the correct one, but this is not yet examine= d, let alone claimed).  This does not prevent (or claim to) *semantic*= ambiguity, where a word or phrase has more than one meaning (in some sense= -- another source of problems) even when all the syntactic information rem= ains the same, nor *referential* ambiguity, where the meaning of an express= ion underdetermines it referent (the classic "Flash strode up to Ming. &nbs= p;He struck him")  And there are probably more varieties.  Any of= these can lead us to map a sentence on to a set of more explicit propositi= ons (pronouns replaced by names, say, times and places fixed, and so on) wh= ich constitute the range of the ambiguity of the sentence, however generate= d.  The sample English sentence generates range of four propositions (= that we are concerned with at the moment) using only syntactic ambiguity. &= nbsp;It is claimed that the given Lojban sentence (or one like it in all re= levant ways) generates the same range of ambiguities without semantic ambig= uity (since it is a Lojban sentence), thus using referential or semantic am= biguities -- or some other sort not yet discussed. That is an intere= sting trick, especially if, as appears to be claimed, it can always be done= in Lojban.  But I don't see what it has to do with monoparsing (excep= t that it is assumed in the claim).

=
On Tuesday, Feb= ruary 3, 2015 11:29 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> w= rote:




2015-02-03 20:19 GMT+03:00 Stela Selckiku <selckiku@gmail.com>= :
I don't understand at all how a Lojban sentence carefully phr= ased to explicitly state a particular ambiguity seems to you to share any s= imilar 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 exac= tly the ambiguity which matches any English ambiguity, which is rather asto= nishingly impressive, better than anyone expected it to work before we'd re= ally 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 am= biguity structures, in English you have to crush together words with zillio= ns of parses and just hope context is enough to pick out the sense you mean= t. Lojban isn't some rigid set of rules where you just get a few fixed pars= es or something, it's a wonderful magical flexible set of rules where you g= et to choose exactly what you want to express and what you don't.

u'e do melb= i 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 b= y 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 w= ho described it that way felt that polyparsing was the only reasonable expl= anation?

Probably it doesn't even m= atter 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 se= veral syntactic trees using one sentence. First, I accepted pycyn's critici= sm by removing OR operator and precise numbers, then And Rosta told that ad= verbial constructs were not the only possible explanation so I wrote this l= ast 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 e= mail 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/o= ptout.


--
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 e= mail 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/o= ptout.


--
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.
------=_Part_1012721_1464787340.1422986921520--