Received: from mail-we0-f187.google.com ([74.125.82.187]:59859) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YIi5R-0000FL-QM for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 10:20:35 -0800 Received: by mail-we0-f187.google.com with SMTP id w62sf3411228wes.4 for ; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 10:20:27 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject: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=QwTjDN1x22rn9FCiKjCtf9RZbQXYuYw2ph2iRT+JvKE=; b=hEhg2Jg7l+DPjKeNOeGqLLh+lxJTuPZmhOOgo6uZDWL9vRBGb6b5+PuVY7PhuBpFfZ m6NIMPqnNwOPHJJqb1I7h4PMZP2X92IA9makIw+8aXPWl1eOPmXyBiRvHqJ9AOFxzS3t IDnViYDH9jMXP7NaaXF/nlVy/6jkPSdc8UEF5le04todI/xEcaSaxEJuFpySqOm3nL7e 51M1ayDxfIVijitD6G2XuIJ4BTuCKofCDcJp/dI2XAVmUsqB4y6Yt7YKkgupZpMnR+Tl z1nPrjcdzYX20Pv9POWgKJETiT7ZnDgMR1DH6c8n3ZUKflVCCi/Q6O3hvuP9Xn2+ofjF WXgQ== X-Received: by 10.152.20.170 with SMTP id o10mr177746lae.12.1422987627016; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 10:20:27 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.152.243.39 with SMTP id wv7ls238154lac.66.gmail; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 10:20:26 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.152.219.136 with SMTP id po8mr3327623lac.4.1422987626136; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 10:20:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wi0-x235.google.com (mail-wi0-x235.google.com. [2a00:1450:400c:c05::235]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id i10si1344795wiz.0.2015.02.03.10.20.26 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 03 Feb 2015 10:20:26 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::235 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c05::235; Received: by mail-wi0-x235.google.com with SMTP id fb4so23664415wid.2 for ; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 10:20:26 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.180.37.197 with SMTP id a5mr36890356wik.2.1422987625982; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 10:20:25 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.194.86.200 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 10:20:05 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1186121403.1012722.1422986921527.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1186121403.1012722.1422986921527.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> From: Gleki Arxokuna Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 21:20:05 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] the myth of monoparsing To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f50309cf772a0050e331f06 X-Original-Sender: gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::235 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=gleki.is.my.name@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: 2015-02-03 21:08 GMT+03:00 'John E Clifford' via lojban < lojban@googlegroups.com>: > I remain unclear about the point of all this. It appears that the > ambiguity of "ambiguity" is at the heart of the matter. Lojban claims to > be anamphibolous, free from *syntactic* ambiguity. 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). 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. 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 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. The sample English sentence generates > range of four propositions (that we are concerned with at the moment) using > only syntactic ambiguity. 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. But I don't see what it has to > do with monoparsing (except that it is assumed in the claim). > [...] 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) [74.125.82.187 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 (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 --e89a8f50309cf772a0050e331f06 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 2015-02-03 21:08 GMT+03:00 'John E Clifford' via lojban < lojban@googlegroups.com>: > I remain unclear about the point of all this. It appears that the > ambiguity of "ambiguity" is at the heart of the matter. Lojban claims to > be anamphibolous, free from *syntactic* ambiguity. 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). 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. 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 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. The sample English sentence generates > range of four propositions (that we are concerned with at the moment) using > only syntactic ambiguity. 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. But I don't see what it has to > do with monoparsing (except that it is assumed in the claim). > What are the examples of polyparsing? Is "Flash strode up to Ming. He struck him" one? Is "Fred saw a plane flying over Zurich" one? > > On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 11:29 AM, Gleki Arxokuna < > gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 2015-02-03 20:19 GMT+03:00 Stela Selckiku : > > 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. > > > -- > 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. --e89a8f50309cf772a0050e331f06 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


2015-02-03 21:08 GMT+03:00 'John E Clifford' via lojban <lojban@googlegroups.com>:
I remain unclear about the p= oint of all this.=C2=A0 It appears that the ambiguity of "ambiguity&qu= ot; is at the heart of the matter.=C2=A0 Lojban claims to be anamphibolous,= free from *syntactic* ambiguity.=C2=A0 That is, every valid Lojban sentenc= e has exactly one parse (and, furthermore, is the correct one, but this is = not yet examined, let alone claimed).=C2=A0 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 meanin= g of an expression underdetermines it referent (the classic "Flash str= ode up to Ming.=C2=A0 He struck him") =C2=A0And there are probably mor= e varieties.=C2=A0 Any of these can lead us to map a sentence on to a set o= f more explicit propositions (pronouns replaced by names, say, times and pl= aces fixed, and so on) which constitute the range of the ambiguity of the s= entence, however generated.=C2=A0 The sample English sentence generates ran= ge of four propositions (that we are concerned with at the moment) using on= ly syntactic ambiguity.=C2=A0 It is claimed that the given Lojban sentence = (or one like it in all relevant ways) generates the same range of ambiguiti= es without semantic ambiguity (since it is a Lojban sentence), thus using r= eferential or semantic ambiguities -- or some other sort not yet discussed.= That is an interesting trick, especially if, as appears to be claim= ed, it can always be done in Lojban.=C2=A0 But I don't see what it has = to do with monoparsing (except that it is assumed in the claim).

What are the examples of polyparsin= g?=C2=A0
Is "Flash strode up to Ming.=C2=A0 He struck him&qu= ot; one?
Is "Fred saw a plane flying over Zurich" one?<= /div>

=


On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 11:29 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.c= om> wrote:




2015-02-03 20:19 GMT+03= :00 Stela Selckiku <selckiku@gmail.com>:
I don't understand at all h= ow a Lojban sentence carefully phrased to explicitly state a particular amb= iguity seems to you to share any similar basic character at all with an Eng= lish sentence which has a similar ambiguity simply by randomly having a cha= otic collection of ambiguities as all English sentences do. In Lojban you&#= 39;re able to unambiguously craft exactly the ambiguity which matches any E= nglish ambiguity, which is rather astonishingly impressive, better than any= one 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 a= rbitrary Lojban sentences in English and then say again you don't see t= he 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 p= arses and just hope context is enough to pick out the sense you meant. Lojb= an 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=C2=A0

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

<= /div>
What makes me wonder is why English can't be called monoparse= d. May be because those who described it that way felt that polyparsing was= the only reasonable explanation?

P= robably it doesn't even matter and some better phrasing of how Lojban r= eally differs should be made. Probably, even based on your reply in this th= read.

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


<3,
selkik

--
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+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+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+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 &= 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.
--e89a8f50309cf772a0050e331f06--