Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::22b as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c05::22b;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAO7bV+gRpGLsCU0kULtC+KQbu7b8K7qs_KDSKHWtQzj43w=RpA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO7bV+hZTwiquY0GcTA0xVjg2t+QnRt_DcY+XafDJYfa10L7ow@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJHgu=_1DxYjopSX2GRxBbu+syJOD47W92m6+-fBA3PncnbNvw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAO7bV+gRpGLsCU0kULtC+KQbu7b8K7qs_KDSKHWtQzj43w=RpA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 18:42:43 +0000
Message-ID: <CACf3dPm-MtP9Bz0m8zMeMR=feguXnEECs+wMofvOTK1vC1ruJw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] the myth of monoparsing
From: And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04182654b34bb2050e336fd4
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:  On 3 Feb 2015 17:29, "Gleki Arxokuna" <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>
    wrote: > > 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? [...] 
 
 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)
                             [209.85.217.187 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
                             (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

--f46d04182654b34bb2050e336fd4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On 3 Feb 2015 17:29, "Gleki Arxokuna" <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> 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?

I wouldn't necessarily say that Lojban is monoparsing, but certainly lots
of people wish it to be, and indeed take it as a basic principle of the
language, even if the actual monoparse of a given sentence is often
unknown. Monoparsing means that to a given sentence phonology there
corresponds no more than one sentence meaning (encoded logical form).

I find it hard to answer your question about why English can't be called
monoparsed, since you and everyone else knows that to a given English
sentence phonology there usually corresponds more than one sentence meaning
-- the Zurich examples showed this. That is, given all the evidence already
available to you, what would it take to convince you that English isn't
monoparsing?

And

-- 
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.

--f46d04182654b34bb2050e336fd4
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<p dir=3D"ltr"><br>
On 3 Feb 2015 17:29, &quot;Gleki Arxokuna&quot; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:gleki=
.is.my.name@gmail.com">gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
=C2=A0<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; I only started this to understand how monoparsing in Lojban is differe=
nt from English.<br>
&gt; If one sentence can be expanded into two distinct syntactic trees by a=
pplying precise numbers instead of imprecise {mo&#39;e zo&#39;e} then it=
9;s still monoparsing of course.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; What makes me wonder is why English can&#39;t be called monoparsed. Ma=
y be because those who described it that way felt that polyparsing was the =
only reasonable explanation?<br></p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">I wouldn&#39;t necessarily say that Lojban is monoparsing, b=
ut certainly lots of people wish it to be, and indeed take it as a basic pr=
inciple of the language, even if the actual monoparse of a given sentence i=
s often unknown. Monoparsing means that to a given sentence phonology there=
 corresponds no more than one sentence meaning (encoded logical form). </p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">I find it hard to answer your question about why English can=
&#39;t be called monoparsed, since you and everyone else knows that to a gi=
ven English sentence phonology there usually corresponds more than one sent=
ence meaning -- the Zurich examples showed this. That is, given all the evi=
dence already available to you, what would it take to convince you that Eng=
lish isn&#39;t monoparsing?</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">And</p>

<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 />

--f46d04182654b34bb2050e336fd4--