Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 98.138.91.167 as permitted sender) client-ip=98.138.91.167;
From: "'John E Clifford' via lojban" <lojban@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary=Apple-Mail-CF82D57C-1166-4EFC-8E42-4562FF410327
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: [lojban] the myth of monoparsing
Message-Id: <19D5ADC4-1966-4AF9-8A23-46544FE63531@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 13:49:03 -0600
References: <CAO7bV+hZTwiquY0GcTA0xVjg2t+QnRt_DcY+XafDJYfa10L7ow@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO7bV+hZTwiquY0GcTA0xVjg2t+QnRt_DcY+XafDJYfa10L7ow@mail.gmail.com>
To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" <lojban@googlegroups.com>
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: 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 two notes here seem to be about a different claim: not
    that one sentence can represent several propositions, but that several sentences
    can represent the same proposition. This is not generally thought of as a
    problem but rather as one of the glories of language, avoiding repetition,
    etc. It has nothing to do with monoparsing. [...] 
 
 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)
                             [209.85.214.187 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-CF82D57C-1166-4EFC-8E42-4562FF410327
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

The two notes here seem to be about a different claim: not that one sentenc=
e can represent several propositions, but that several sentences can repres=
ent the same proposition.  This is not generally thought of as a problem bu=
t rather as one of the glories of language, avoiding repetition, etc.  It h=
as nothing to do with monoparsing.

Sent from my iPad

> On Feb 3, 2015, at 02:42, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wro=
te:
>=20
> Since the original post on monoparsing as something unique or defining fe=
ature of Lojban provided no examples on how this monoparsing differs from E=
nglish here is once again my full understanding using one example that is m=
onoparsed both in English and Lojban:
> "Fred saw a plane flying over Zurich" can have several meanings:
> 1. Attach as a relative clause to the first place:
> Fred (who was flying over Zurich) saw a plane.
> 2. Attach as a relative clause to the second place:
> Fred saw a plane (that was flying over Zurich).
> 3. Adverb-like clause (raising, attachment to the first place implied).
> Fred saw a plane (while he was) flying over Zurich.
> 4. Adverb-like clause (raising, attachment to the second place implied).
> Fred saw a plane (while it was) flying over Zurich.
>=20
> Now all those examples have
> a. One phonetic realization in English
> b. Have several meanings.
> c. They are NOT independent from the semantics and place structure of the=
 verb "saw" (since the result will differ e.g. with verbs having another am=
ount of places).
>=20
> Can this be called syntactic ambiguity? You decide.
> But in Lojban all of those example can be similarly expressed using one p=
honetic realisation:
>=20
> {la fred pu viska lo vinji do'e lo se xi vei mo'e zo'e nei poi vofli ga'u=
 la tsurix}
>=20
> Two important notes:
> I. Raising can appear when a Lojban tag is moved from {SUMTI ne TAG SUMTI=
} position to the main clause, e.g.:
> {mi ne sepi'o lo forca cu citka} =3D> {mi pilno lo forca lo nu citka}
> However, according to CLL it's possible to use it in the main clause: {mi=
 citka sepi'o lo forca}. Thus CLL allows for raising.
> This isn't formalized in any way in CLL but this allows for 3. and 4. und=
erstandings of the English phrase.
>=20
> II. Replacing {do'e} with {fa xi xo'e} can be possible but again "double =
FA" isn't described anywhere in CLL.
>=20
> Since I and II aren't officially described and/or banned/allowed I have n=
o idea why Lojban is said to have monoparsing different from the one in Eng=
lish.
>=20
> Some actions/research I saw:
>=20
> A. Double standards in interpreting English examples while not interpreti=
ng Lojban translations thus leading to a false conclusion that Lojban is di=
fferent from English in parsing.
> B. Providing no examples
> C. Calling my translations "tricky/idiotic/stupid". This one is a biased =
opinion. Everything that is allowed in Lojban is neither tricky nor idiotic=
. What seems idiotic now can be found very useful in future.
> D. Ignoring certain parts of Lojban. For sure, certain subsets of Lojban =
can not allow for such translations but then it should be clearly stated th=
at not Lojban but some part of it has certain features (which) and how they=
 differ from English.
> E. Such links as http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3D17431 don't pr=
ovide nice examples since they mix polysemy with possible multiparsing.
> --=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-CF82D57C-1166-4EFC-8E42-4562FF410327
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"content-type" content=3D"text/html; charset=
=3Dutf-8"></head><body dir=3D"auto"><div>The two notes here seem to be abou=
t a different claim: not that one sentence can represent several propositio=
ns, but that several sentences can represent the same proposition. &nbsp;Th=
is is not generally thought of as a problem but rather as one of the glorie=
s of language, avoiding repetition, etc. &nbsp;It has nothing to do with mo=
noparsing.<br><br>Sent from my iPad</div><div><br>On Feb 3, 2015, at 02:42,=
 Gleki Arxokuna &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com">gleki.is.=
my.name@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type=3D"cite"><di=
v><div dir=3D"ltr">Since the original post on monoparsing as something uniq=
ue or defining feature of Lojban provided no examples on how this monoparsi=
ng differs from English here is once again my full understanding using one =
example that is monoparsed both in English and Lojban:<div>"Fred saw a plan=
e flying over Zurich" can have several meanings:</div><div>1. Attach as a r=
elative clause to the first place:</div><div>Fred (who was flying over Zuri=
ch) saw a plane.</div><div>2. Attach as a relative clause to the second pla=
ce:</div><div><div>Fred saw a plane (that was flying over Zurich).</div></d=
iv><div>3. Adverb-like clause (raising, attachment to the first place impli=
ed).</div><div>Fred saw a plane (while he was) flying over Zurich.<br></div=
><div>4. Adverb-like clause (raising, attachment to the second place implie=
d).</div><div>Fred saw a plane (while it was) flying over Zurich.<br></div>=
<div><br></div><div>Now all those examples have</div><div>a. One phonetic r=
ealization in English</div><div>b. Have several meanings.</div><div>c. They=
 are NOT independent from the semantics and place structure of the verb "sa=
w" (since the result will differ e.g. with verbs having another amount of p=
laces).</div><div><br></div><div>Can this be called syntactic ambiguity? Yo=
u decide.</div><div>But in Lojban all of those example can be similarly exp=
ressed using one phonetic realisation:</div><div><br></div><div>{la fred pu=
 viska lo vinji do'e lo se xi vei mo'e zo'e nei poi vofli ga'u la tsurix}</=
div><div><br></div><div>Two important notes:</div><div>I. Raising can appea=
r when a Lojban tag is moved from {SUMTI ne TAG SUMTI} position to the main=
 clause, e.g.:</div><div>{mi ne sepi'o lo forca cu citka} =3D&gt; {mi pilno=
 lo forca lo nu citka}</div><div>However, according to CLL it's possible to=
 use it in the main clause: {mi citka sepi'o lo forca}. Thus CLL allows for=
 raising.</div><div>This isn't formalized in any way in CLL but this allows=
 for 3. and 4. understandings of the English phrase.<br></div><div><br></di=
v><div>II. Replacing {do'e} with {fa xi xo'e} can be possible but again "do=
uble FA" isn't described anywhere in CLL.</div><div><br></div><div>Since I =
and II aren't officially described and/or banned/allowed I have no idea why=
 Lojban is said to have monoparsing different from the one in English.</div=
><div><br></div><div>Some actions/research I saw:</div><div><br></div><div>=
A. Double standards in interpreting English examples while not interpreting=
 Lojban translations thus leading to a false conclusion that Lojban is diff=
erent from English in parsing.</div><div>B. Providing no examples</div><div=
>C. Calling my translations "tricky/idiotic/stupid". This one is a biased o=
pinion. Everything that is allowed in Lojban is neither tricky nor idiotic.=
 What seems idiotic now can be found very useful in future.</div><div>D. Ig=
noring certain parts of Lojban. For sure, certain subsets of Lojban can not=
 allow for such translations but then it should be clearly stated that not =
Lojban but some part of it has certain features (which) and how they differ=
 from English.</div><div>E. Such links as&nbsp;<a href=3D"http://languagelo=
g.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3D17431">http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3D1=
7431</a> don't provide nice examples since they mix polysemy with possible =
multiparsing.</div></div>

<p></p>

-- <br>
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" 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>
</div></blockquote></body></html>

<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 />

--Apple-Mail-CF82D57C-1166-4EFC-8E42-4562FF410327--