Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c00::229 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c00::229;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAO7bV+gmUSrm3oqfi0Drzk-SWEiAU277KanRNWPzPx+2drRT3Q@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>
	<CACf3dPm-MtP9Bz0m8zMeMR=feguXnEECs+wMofvOTK1vC1ruJw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAO7bV+gmUSrm3oqfi0Drzk-SWEiAU277KanRNWPzPx+2drRT3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2015 11:07:43 +0000
Message-ID: <CACf3dPnyZi9ro=vtvdUgDk1qwcZrnLmChfnjHjOHXDLy1SuDzg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] the myth of monoparsing
From: And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7ba97cc409af6c050e696e8b
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 6 Feb 2015 06:56, "Gleki Arxokuna" <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>
    wrote: > > > > 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: >> >> > >> > 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. [...] 
 
 Content analysis details:   (0.8 points, 5.0 required)
 
  pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
  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 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]
 -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3      RBL: Good reputation (+3)
                             [209.85.215.62 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
                             (and.rosta[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

--047d7ba97cc409af6c050e696e8b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On 6 Feb 2015 06:56, "Gleki Arxokuna" <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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:
>>
>> >
>> > 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.

I call it syntactic ambiguity. I, like most others, deny that Lojban can be
syntactically ambiguous. For syntactic ambiguity you need two sentences
with different logicosyntactic forms and the same phonological form. That
doesn't occur with Lojban.

> 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?

But if you lack the ability to discriminate between cats and dogs then
you're going to think that dogs look, walk and smell like cats.

>
> 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".

I recognize that that is your view. To me it currently seems as though you
don't understand what syntax is, given that you think there is such a thing
as "syntactic vagueness". Or, let me phrase that more charitably: your
understanding of the notion "syntax" appears to differ from other
lojbanists' and linguisticians'. I think you might be calling "syntax" not
the encoded logicosyntactic form but the enriched "logical explicature"
derived from the encoded logicosyntactic form, which is a complete
proposition. A single logicosyntactic form might, due to underspecification
of logical relations, be interpreted as any of many logical explicatures,
and in such a case you could call the sentence "logically vague". The
monoparsing claim is that every sentential phonological form corresponds to
no more than one logicosyntactic form, not that the logicosyntactic form it
corresponds to can be interpreted as no more than one logical explicature.

To avoid misunderstanding: I recognize that Lojban syntax doesn't exist in
any formal or explicit form, and that the claim that it is unambiguous is
based simply on the design principle that no ambiguity is permitted and
hence any syntax that allows ambiguity must be incorrect.

--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.

--047d7ba97cc409af6c050e696e8b
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<p dir=3D"ltr"><br>
On 6 Feb 2015 06:56, &quot;Gleki Arxokuna&quot; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:gleki=
.is.my.name@gmail.com">gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; 2015-02-03 21:42 GMT+03:00 And Rosta &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:and.rosta@g=
mail.com">and.rosta@gmail.com</a>&gt;:<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; On 3 Feb 2015 17:29, &quot;Gleki Arxokuna&quot; &lt;<a href=3D"mai=
lto:gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com">gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<b=
r>
&gt;&gt; =C2=A0<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; I only started this to understand how monoparsing in Lojban i=
s different from English.<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; If one sentence can be expanded into two distinct syntactic t=
rees by applying precise numbers instead of imprecise {mo&#39;e zo&#39;e} t=
hen it&#39;s still monoparsing of course.<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; What makes me wonder is why English can&#39;t be called monop=
arsed. May be because those who described it that way felt that polyparsing=
 was the only reasonable explanation?<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; I wouldn&#39;t necessarily say that Lojban is monoparsing, but cer=
tainly lots of people wish it to be, and indeed take it as a basic principl=
e of the language, even if the actual monoparse of a given sentence is ofte=
n unknown. Monoparsing means that to a given sentence phonology there corre=
sponds no more than one sentence meaning (encoded logical form).<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; I find it hard to answer your question about why English can&#39;t=
 be called monoparsed, since you and everyone else knows that to a given En=
glish sentence phonology there usually corresponds more than one sentence m=
eaning -- the Zurich examples showed this.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; I&#39;m not going to argue over terminology.<br>
&gt; If you call this syntactic ambiguity then Lojban can also be ambiguous=
.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">I call it syntactic ambiguity. I, like most others, deny tha=
t Lojban can be syntactically ambiguous. For syntactic ambiguity you need t=
wo sentences with different logicosyntactic forms and the same phonological=
 form. That doesn&#39;t occur with Lojban.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">&gt; If you call this vagueness then Lojban is similarly vag=
ue.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; If something looks like a cat, walks like a cat, smells like a cat may=
 be this is a cat?</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">But if you lack the ability to discriminate between cats and=
 dogs then you&#39;re going to think that dogs look, walk and smell like ca=
ts.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">&gt;<br>
&gt; Shall we rephrase the statement into the following?<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; &quot;Lojban is one of the few languages (along with e.g. gua\spi) tha=
t has such interesting syntactic parsers that they perceive some sentences =
as syntactically vague whereas as of 2015 most English parsers perceive the=
m as syntactically ambiguous. However, the humanity hopes that in future ev=
en English parsers will reach the level Lojban has now&quot;.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">I recognize that that is your view. To me it currently seems=
 as though you don&#39;t understand what syntax is, given that you think th=
ere is such a thing as &quot;syntactic vagueness&quot;. Or, let me phrase t=
hat more charitably: your understanding of the notion &quot;syntax&quot; ap=
pears to differ from other lojbanists&#39; and linguisticians&#39;. I think=
 you might be calling &quot;syntax&quot; not the encoded logicosyntactic fo=
rm but the enriched &quot;logical explicature&quot; derived from the encode=
d logicosyntactic form, which is a complete proposition. A single logicosyn=
tactic form might, due to underspecification of logical relations, be inter=
preted as any of many logical explicatures, and in such a case you could ca=
ll the sentence &quot;logically vague&quot;. The monoparsing claim is that =
every sentential phonological form corresponds to no more than one logicosy=
ntactic form, not that the logicosyntactic form it corresponds to can be in=
terpreted as no more than one logical explicature.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">To avoid misunderstanding: I recognize that Lojban syntax do=
esn&#39;t exist in any formal or explicit form, and that the claim that it =
is unambiguous is based simply on the design principle that no ambiguity is=
 permitted and hence any syntax that allows ambiguity must be incorrect.</p=
>
<p dir=3D"ltr">--And. </p>

<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 />

--047d7ba97cc409af6c050e696e8b--