Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of selckiku@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c04::22c as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4010:c04::22c;
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>
From: Stela Selckiku <selckiku@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 15:02:53 -0500
Message-ID: <CAJHgu=-OUii=djXJHTfOpPq8gtvKRztBEtsEFBKsvOVJN+AWqQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] the myth of monoparsing
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3db6a2db51d050e3490dc
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 Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>
    wrote: > > > 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. > > [...] 
 
 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)
                             [209.85.215.61 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
                             (selckiku[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

--001a11c3db6a2db51d050e3490dc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> 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.
>
>

OK maybe I'm starting to understand your complaint. I'm starting to agree
(ha, I guess since we're speaking English I'm speaking Lojban accented
English) that "monoparsing" isn't a good expression of the most important
difference. What's essential is that the structure is determined entirely
by the selma'o tree and not by cmavo knowing about the semantics or even
the structure of other parts of the sentence around them.

For instance an example of one sort of cmavo we wouldn't have would be a
cmavo that accepts a selbri if it follows a plant name but a sumti if it
follows an animal name. The cmavo can't know the semantics of their
context-- semantically agnostic parsing, you could call it.

But also perhaps even more difficult to describe, we probably wouldn't have
a cmavo that accepts a selbri if it's on the main level vs a sumti if it's
in an embedded bridi. We definitely wouldn't have a cmavo that acts
differently if there's a BAI attached somewhere else in the same bridi.
Each cmavo has no sense at all of any elsewhere existing. Even on that
syntax level there's some sort of locality that's enforced. I don't know
any good name for that condition? I'm not sure if we're even very clear on
exactly what the rules are, for instance {cu'au} interestingly violates
some assumptions there and so it constitutes an interesting edge case.

I'm not sure what to call it, but here's a rule that I think demonstrates
many of these properties: You can substitute any word for any other word of
the same selma'o (or any other brivla in the case of brivla) and the parse
tree of the sentence necessarily stays identical.

<3,
telselkik

-- 
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.

--001a11c3db6a2db51d050e3490dc
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te">On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Gleki Arxokuna <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<=
a href=3D"mailto:gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">gleki.is.my.=
name@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" s=
tyle=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div=
 dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">=
<div>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?</div><div><br></div><div>Probably it doesn&#39=
;t even matter and some better phrasing of how Lojban really differs should=
 be made. Probably, even based on your reply in this thread.</div><br></div=
></div></div></blockquote><div><br><br>OK maybe I&#39;m starting to underst=
and your complaint. I&#39;m starting to agree (ha, I guess since we&#39;re =
speaking English I&#39;m speaking Lojban accented English) that &quot;monop=
arsing&quot; isn&#39;t a good expression of the most important difference. =
What&#39;s essential is that the structure is determined entirely by the se=
lma&#39;o tree and not by cmavo knowing about the semantics or even the str=
ucture of other parts of the sentence around them. <br><br>For instance an =
example of one sort of cmavo we wouldn&#39;t have would be a cmavo that acc=
epts a selbri if it follows a plant name but a sumti if it follows an anima=
l name. The cmavo can&#39;t know the semantics of their context-- semantica=
lly agnostic parsing, you could call it. <br><br>But also perhaps even more=
 difficult to describe, we probably wouldn&#39;t have a cmavo that accepts =
a selbri if it&#39;s on the main level vs a sumti if it&#39;s in an embedde=
d bridi. We definitely wouldn&#39;t have a cmavo that acts differently if t=
here&#39;s a BAI attached somewhere else in the same bridi. Each cmavo has =
no sense at all of any elsewhere existing. Even on that syntax level there&=
#39;s some sort of locality that&#39;s enforced. I don&#39;t know any good =
name for that condition? I&#39;m not sure if we&#39;re even very clear on e=
xactly what the rules are, for instance {cu&#39;au} interestingly violates =
some assumptions there and so it constitutes an interesting edge case. <br>=
<br>I&#39;m not sure what to call it, but here&#39;s a rule that I think de=
monstrates many of these properties: You can substitute any word for any ot=
her word of the same selma&#39;o (or any other brivla in the case of brivla=
) and the parse tree of the sentence necessarily stays identical. <br><br>&=
lt;3, <br>telselkik <br><br></div></div></div></div>

<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 />

--001a11c3db6a2db51d050e3490dc--