Received: from mail-oi0-f56.google.com ([209.85.218.56]:49671) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YIjIK-0000u2-Gs for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 11:38:00 -0800 Received: by mail-oi0-f56.google.com with SMTP id a141sf14993324oig.1 for ; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 11:37:50 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject :message-id:date:references:in-reply-to:to: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=UWHwKDyJ5DsSX2LgUvS9NDZ5essHjCQhFB4EfCbgvDk=; b=xI9RSLIFNQUm+QARn+AueGJFlhr2Wv3e5KYjhmRKEu+vz07F+ON2VbCTBl5wxB1lqZ 00f8G21DWJLhOJ6PkdSAzP+OgtOgLxk8+gdXc55t4e38+kdjhK+1QGHFaPSWeFv+4LWJ QCtXvYBvUQ+Oh39iwU7FXUT6ZN4/0YCuZllynTCatWqlWqV/5UWPFgU+rL6kKvBpMxKc 72NLb0uZHeGEAlaamqB6MshNAI70UPAuQKKYzGCgBFmtueFJIbZzbu2/iJKMgYx0Sahy KH9KI/ULaGnE2izKhhDVzWkwKUVN5KIU6pRCqrRrcVsP1zh0H0PQjPsckdFk++i1Ud6U FLlw== X-Received: by 10.50.49.2 with SMTP id q2mr282220ign.12.1422992270501; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 11:37:50 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.107.164.221 with SMTP id d90ls1562766ioj.68.gmail; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 11:37:50 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.66.190.104 with SMTP id gp8mr23871498pac.26.1422992270131; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 11:37:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from nm15-vm2.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (nm15-vm2.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com. [98.138.91.91]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q6si1364014igr.3.2015.02.03.11.37.49 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 03 Feb 2015 11:37:50 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 98.138.91.91 as permitted sender) client-ip=98.138.91.91; Received: from [98.138.100.118] by nm15.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Feb 2015 19:37:49 -0000 Received: from [98.138.84.41] by tm109.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Feb 2015 19:37:49 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp109.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Feb 2015 19:37:49 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 510320.96994.bm@smtp109.mail.ne1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: knHc2dIVM1kleyZ8jNMIKcS0v84._PcIZFvecTQQeY2r1mH xoA5GIFl7E1vLvzo3Fb8Jggm8OcL_kQW.Rhoax2cAGEXbCKmUY_JGmkFaI6J Toae9DQBAIALDjeVwlpwBZtcNWv9Ufy4f6q_8Iboxrl7mhbBGtQ5i22RG8nT rMLw3hYRRrElJrGQWu68Nga6ktuwAN3fYzR1.kLNwI5Uw8P2lfa91gNJDAZX DTPmxUlmxeC.RMclI999BGZ2FPDPK.KT4aWleutAo.QZYcM72WIHVUI02oc8 XQ.eu7OGqMPublCLZeYf28.tUVCoobdQbR0EgN.DF1Ob2pCLIxhWowwyKmfW JqJmsvlDYzblMe8CLIQOYUQFI46hXu8Mb8BZ1k7P1pxNVi2B6UEnPOkNHXWh 6atvvU5eVYNg_hU4BeKKwSRD2LU6hlAfCm3LcX0Wb.9pz81lDH4OcJodpwxX _6pvDj37qLxBKk9T.0OLzeoK58p5DvsOZgj8DbvNZ6QJMyc13IS3LXk74Yqn DsYaxetPmlRZvw6kDi5k5XYubnb8LjSu83sX6jnmVwzejbyhvbS5N.NY.EZ6 DwQ0bednT7AkscGA7gmovKzv6FWHKklD3DjtF_wsUwTkyYklHQhmLDHZ4v6m DVZmlslwPtqp.N8.YUlRkEyF7AUslLZKZpEFYzgbqnrUOAU5CQ3xH8dQ_DKH Ws.IyZUhTJWFVqmACYw-- X-Yahoo-SMTP: xvGyF4GswBCIFKGaxf5wSjlg3RF108g- From: "'John E Clifford' via lojban" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-611EF4B8-AA78-4B88-9C19-63B1184AE3AC Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Subject: Re: [lojban] the myth of monoparsing Message-Id: <22BFA47D-FA85-473D-B3A9-B08DE71EDA12@yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 13:37:50 -0600 References: <1186121403.1012722.1422986921527.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" X-Mailer: iPad Mail (12B410) X-Original-Sender: kali9putra@yahoo.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 98.138.91.91 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=kali9putra@yahoo.com; dkim=pass header.i=@yahoo.com; dmarc=pass (p=REJECT dis=NONE) header.from=yahoo.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-Original-From: John E Clifford X-Spam-Score: 2.2 (++) X-Spam_score: 2.2 X-Spam_score_int: 22 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: The Fred case is clearly polyparsing. The Flash case pretty clearly is not, but rather referential ambiguity (pretty clearly because some would insist that anaphoric tie-up is a part of parsing rather than a later step). [...] Content analysis details: (2.2 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) [209.85.218.56 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 1.5 FORGED_MSGID_YAHOO Message-ID is forged, (yahoo.com) -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL Mailspike good senders --Apple-Mail-611EF4B8-AA78-4B88-9C19-63B1184AE3AC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The Fred case is clearly polyparsing. The Flash case pretty clearly is not= , but rather referential ambiguity (pretty clearly because some would insis= t that anaphoric tie-up is a part of parsing rather than a later step). Sent from my iPad > On Feb 3, 2015, at 12:20, Gleki Arxokuna wro= te: >=20 >=20 >=20 > 2015-02-03 21:08 GMT+03:00 'John E Clifford' via lojban : >> I remain unclear about the point of all this. It appears that the ambig= uity of "ambiguity" is at the heart of the matter. Lojban claims to be ana= mphibolous, free from *syntactic* ambiguity. That is, every valid Lojban s= entence has exactly one parse (and, furthermore, is the correct one, but th= is is not yet examined, let alone claimed). This does not prevent (or clai= m to) *semantic* ambiguity, where a word or phrase has more than one meanin= g (in some sense -- another source of problems) even when all the syntactic= information remains the same, nor *referential* ambiguity, where the meani= ng of an expression underdetermines it referent (the classic "Flash strode = up to Ming. He struck him") And there are probably more varieties. Any o= f these can lead us to map a sentence on to a set of more explicit proposit= ions (pronouns replaced by names, say, times and places fixed, and so on) w= hich constitute the range of the ambiguity of the sentence, however generat= ed. The sample English sentence generates range of four propositions (that= we are concerned with at the moment) using only syntactic ambiguity. It i= s claimed that the given Lojban sentence (or one like it in all relevant wa= ys) generates the same range of ambiguities without semantic ambiguity (sin= ce it is a Lojban sentence), thus using referential or semantic ambiguities= -- or some other sort not yet discussed. That is an interesting trick, esp= ecially 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). >=20 > What are the examples of polyparsing?=20 > Is "Flash strode up to Ming. He struck him" one? > Is "Fred saw a plane flying over Zurich" one? >=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 11:29 AM, Gleki Arxokuna wrote: >>=20 >>=20 >>=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 exp= licitly state a particular ambiguity seems to you to share any similar basi= c character at all with an English sentence which has a similar ambiguity s= imply by randomly having a chaotic collection of ambiguities as all English= sentences do. In Lojban you're able to unambiguously craft exactly the amb= iguity which matches any English ambiguity, which is rather astonishingly i= mpressive, 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 >>=20 >> Try going the other way and matching the exact ambiguities from arbitrar= y Lojban sentences in English and then say again you don't see the differen= ce. You can't just make an English sentence have exactly the ambiguities yo= u want in order to match some other language's ambiguity structures, in Eng= lish 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 wo= nderful magical flexible set of rules where you get to choose exactly what = you want to express and what you don't.=20 >>=20 >> u'e do melbi tcetce cusku=20 >>=20 >> 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 app= lying precise numbers instead of imprecise {mo'e zo'e} then it's still mono= parsing of course. >>=20 >> What makes me wonder is why English can't be called monoparsed. May be b= ecause those who described it that way felt that polyparsing was the only r= easonable explanation? >>=20 >> Probably 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. >>=20 >> At least, this example led to some new ways of encoding several syntacti= c trees using one sentence. First, I accepted pycyn's criticism by removing= OR operator and precise numbers, then And Rosta told that adverbial constr= ucts were not the only possible explanation so I wrote this last translatio= n. >>=20 >>=20 >> <3,=20 >> selkik >>=20 >> --=20 >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group= s "lojban" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send a= n 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. >>=20 >>=20 >> --=20 >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group= s "lojban" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send a= n 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. >>=20 >>=20 >> --=20 >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group= s "lojban" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send a= n 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. >=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= 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. --=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. --Apple-Mail-611EF4B8-AA78-4B88-9C19-63B1184AE3AC Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The Fred case is clearly polyparsi= ng.  The Flash case pretty clearly is not, but rather referential ambi= guity (pretty clearly because some would insist that anaphoric tie-up is a = part of parsing rather than a later step).


Sent from my i= Pad

On Feb 3, 2015, at 12:20, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:=



2015-02-03 21:08 GMT+03:00= 'John E Clifford' via lojban <lojban@googlegroups.com>:
I remai= n 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 ana= mphibolous, free from *syntactic* ambiguity.  That is, every valid Loj= ban sentence has exactly one parse (and, furthermore, is the correct one, b= ut this is not yet examined, let alone claimed).  This does not preven= t (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 "Fla= sh strode up to Ming.  He struck him")  And there are probably mo= re 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 p= laces fixed, and so on) which constitute the range of the ambiguity of the = sentence, however generated.  The sample English sentence generates ra= nge of four propositions (that we are concerned with at the moment) using o= nly syntactic ambiguity.  It is claimed that the given Lojban sentence= (or one like it in all relevant ways) generates the same range of ambiguit= ies 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 clai= med, 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?&= nbsp;
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@g= mail.com> wrote:




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 a= mbiguity seems to you to share any similar basic character at all with an E= nglish sentence which has a similar ambiguity simply by randomly having a c= haotic collection of ambiguities as all English sentences do. In Lojban you= 're able to unambiguously craft exactly the ambiguity which matches any Eng= lish ambiguity, which is rather astonishingly impressive, better than anyon= e expected it to work before we'd really tried it. It's not that Lojban's r= equired not to have ambiguities, or something, it's that you can state what= ever ambiguities you want.

Try going = the other way and matching the exact ambiguities from arbitrary Lojban sent= ences 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 ord= er 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 e= nough 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 magic= al flexible set of rules where you get to choose exactly what you want to e= xpress 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 i= mprecise {mo'e zo'e} then it's still monoparsing of course.

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

<= /div>
Probably it doesn't even matter and some better phrasing of how L= ojban 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 sentenc= e. First, I accepted pycyn's criticism by removing OR operator and precise = numbers, then And Rosta told that adverbial constructs were not the only po= ssible explanation so I wrote this last translation.


<3,
selki= k

--
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 "= 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 "= 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.

--
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.
--Apple-Mail-611EF4B8-AA78-4B88-9C19-63B1184AE3AC--