Received: from mail-pa0-f64.google.com ([209.85.220.64]:44515) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YIlm0-0002Sf-H0 for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 14:16:45 -0800 Received: by mail-pa0-f64.google.com with SMTP id fb1sf5322454pad.9 for ; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 14:16:38 -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=uLNpmkYX3R0dHelqe++/N3iBlElIuz9beBSvStJ1Aug=; b=Jq1jadhG3OMiRracuotqXVQBrZfZ3ZztG4NQdf+t1Bi13jvyCvcywf1qy7aSZHZF7u Bn2kQ1VZN59Yi5fKghlHjdacYOQTTFGQFeWoN+XQEJa6vEXjtBm2a06/QS5EZ/oZtREV gsf3VP5Dw1KjpYb9oI7JdiNymEqRS5zrgwNSEwGS5mYajKM6vyjEjSIDejc6JijRqEvI zJEvx9LiXaHowAAVh4DhZ66t7xYsAk7E8OpeFD9Sg8sIUN55NsM0LYvLH7TB/TTIsHXN Z8448ERb/Rlx+jCPQFU1jVDPkmH5luu+2EffdanSeIpzURGCrZcfHEiFrpOne7XxgYPA jyFA== X-Received: by 10.50.128.202 with SMTP id nq10mr298879igb.12.1423001798444; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 14:16:38 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.51.18.97 with SMTP id gl1ls1834183igd.40.gmail; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 14:16:38 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.70.39.102 with SMTP id o6mr23760382pdk.4.1423001798079; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 14:16:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ob0-x22e.google.com (mail-ob0-x22e.google.com. [2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22e]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id qj12si1409975igc.2.2015.02.03.14.16.38 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 03 Feb 2015 14:16:38 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of lytlesw@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22e as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22e; Received: by mail-ob0-f174.google.com with SMTP id wo20so21216318obc.5 for ; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 14:16:37 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.202.215.131 with SMTP id o125mr15887997oig.109.1423001797424; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 14:16:37 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.202.231.5 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 14:16:07 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: MorphemeAddict Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 17:16:07 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] the myth of monoparsing To: lojban@googlegroups.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113d592ea67b51050e366cc5 X-Original-Sender: lytlesw@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of lytlesw@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22e as permitted sender) smtp.mail=lytlesw@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: telselkik, Would your "semantically agnostic parsing" be the same as context-free grammar? stevo On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 3:02 PM, Stela Selckiku wrote: [...] 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_H2 RBL: Average reputation (+2) [209.85.220.64 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 (lytlesw[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 --001a113d592ea67b51050e366cc5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 telselkik, Would your "semantically agnostic parsing" be the same as context-free grammar? stevo On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 3:02 PM, Stela Selckiku wrote: > > > 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. > -- 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. --001a113d592ea67b51050e366cc5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
telselkik, Would your "semantically agnostic parsing&qu= ot; be the same as context-free grammar?=C2=A0

stevo

On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at = 3:02 PM, Stela Selckiku <selckiku@gmail.com> wrote:

=
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 c= an't be called monoparsed. May be because those who described it that w= ay 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 rep= ly in this thread.


=
OK maybe I'm starting to understand your complaint. I'm startin= g to agree (ha, I guess since we're speaking English I'm speaking L= ojban accented English) that "monoparsing" isn't a good expre= ssion of the most important difference. What's essential is that the st= ructure is determined entirely by the selma'o tree and not by cmavo kno= wing about the semantics or even the structure of other parts of the senten= ce around them.

For instance an example of one sort of cmavo we wou= ldn'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 th= e semantics of their context-- semantically agnostic parsing, you could cal= l 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 le= vel 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 ex= isting. Even on that syntax level there's some sort of locality that= 9;s enforced. I don't know any good name for that condition? I'm no= t sure if we're even very clear on exactly what the rules are, for inst= ance {cu'au} interestingly violates some assumptions there and so it co= nstitutes an interesting edge case.

I'm not sure what to call i= t, 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 (o= r any other brivla in the case of brivla) and the parse tree of the sentenc= e necessarily stays identical.

<3,
telselkik

<= /div>

--
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.
--001a113d592ea67b51050e366cc5--