Received: from mail-wg0-f59.google.com ([74.125.82.59]:56922) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YJcqD-0007ZH-Ox for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2015 22:56:38 -0800 Received: by mail-wg0-f59.google.com with SMTP id l2sf1483811wgh.4 for ; Thu, 05 Feb 2015 22:56:31 -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=SQBZV+oQueNYFEkgr/S1dtt3lbCT/sS6FNl1YZQckqk=; b=vWTzzB2ma6ppEGPSkKxeHSzI+81lPULyBIHUlzmvkdfEDp5u910HclWe26k5mF+TO/ eVA69/uxa2WYA/6lkBnkchJhj0PkovdwpSoT808CE6qa2fNqJi0Lvdq8U2OAgiUmVCrg B9uOizxeGTlwozw3yHmZj5/zuRqCD4wpgIUIXtpRnBRcBoOIo1tDvLyAR0NEiwT+JwtP C5jt0JUqpS155NPBmXCmogAB7E+txphCQamrEdBq9iJXooizMhulCgsI1hoW8Wsd+Iup 1eP3ah5rydLGwyuQDpXt3uOw9qetK36Y7Q/9UXPdh5lOK+yd/lj9cZvBOv1wP4F5JOfS we+w== X-Received: by 10.152.170.202 with SMTP id ao10mr15873lac.23.1423205791199; Thu, 05 Feb 2015 22:56:31 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.152.3.170 with SMTP id d10ls226874lad.37.gmail; Thu, 05 Feb 2015 22:56:30 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.112.171.37 with SMTP id ar5mr56180lbc.16.1423205790264; Thu, 05 Feb 2015 22:56:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wi0-x22c.google.com (mail-wi0-x22c.google.com. [2a00:1450:400c:c05::22c]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id jx7si9050wid.2.2015.02.05.22.56.30 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 05 Feb 2015 22:56:30 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::22c as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c05::22c; Received: by mail-wi0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id h11so130549wiw.5 for ; Thu, 05 Feb 2015 22:56:30 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.180.39.72 with SMTP id n8mr83163wik.59.1423205790052; Thu, 05 Feb 2015 22:56:30 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.194.86.200 with HTTP; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 22:56:09 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Gleki Arxokuna Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2015 09:56:09 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] the myth of monoparsing To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1135e5d08ef79f050e65eb96 X-Original-Sender: gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::22c as permitted sender) smtp.mail=gleki.is.my.name@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: 2015-02-03 21:42 GMT+03:00 And Rosta : > > On 3 Feb 2015 17:29, "Gleki Arxokuna" 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. > [...] 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) [74.125.82.59 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 (gleki.is.my.name[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 --001a1135e5d08ef79f050e65eb96 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 2015-02-03 21:42 GMT+03:00 And Rosta : > > On 3 Feb 2015 17:29, "Gleki Arxokuna" 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. > I'm not going to argue over terminology. If you call this syntactic ambiguity then Lojban can also be ambiguous. If you call this vagueness then Lojban is similarly vague. If something looks like a cat, walks like a cat, smells like a cat may be this is a cat? Shall we rephrase the statement into the following? "Lojban is one of the few languages (along with e.g. gua\spi) that has such interesting syntactic parsers that they perceive some sentences as syntactically vague whereas as of 2015 most English parsers perceive them as syntactically ambiguous. However, the humanity hopes that in future even English parsers will reach the level Lojban has now". pei 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. > -- 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. --001a1135e5d08ef79f050e65eb96 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


2015-02-03 21:42 GMT+03:00 And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>:

On 3 Feb 2015 17:29, "Gleki Arxokuna" <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>= wrote:
=C2=A0
>
> I only started this to understand how monoparsing in Lojban is differe= nt from English.
> If one sentence can be expanded into two distinct syntactic trees by a= pplying precise numbers instead of imprecise {mo'e zo'e} then it= 9;s still monoparsing of course.
>
> What makes me wonder is why English can't be called monoparsed. Ma= y be because those who described it that way felt that polyparsing was the = only reasonable explanation?

I wouldn't necessarily say that Lojban is monopar= sing, but certainly lots of people wish it to be, and indeed take it as a b= asic principle of the language, even if the actual monoparse of a given sen= tence is often unknown. Monoparsing means that to a given sentence phonolog= y 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 gi= ven English sentence phonology there usually corresponds more than one sent= ence meaning -- the Zurich examples showed this.


<= /div>
I'm not going to argue over terminology.
If you cal= l this syntactic ambiguity then Lojban can also be ambiguous.
If = you call this vagueness then Lojban is similarly vague.

If something looks like a cat, walks like a cat, smells like a cat ma= y be this is a cat?

Shall we rephrase the statemen= t into the following?

"Lojban is one of the f= ew languages (along with e.g. gua\spi) that has such interesting syntactic = parsers that they perceive some sentences as syntactically vague whereas as= of 2015 most English parsers perceive them as syntactically ambiguous. How= ever, the humanity hopes that in future even English parsers will reach the= level Lojban has now".

pei=C2=A0
<= br>

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 &= 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.
--001a1135e5d08ef79f050e65eb96--