Received: from mail-wg0-f55.google.com ([74.125.82.55]:48990) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YJh1i-0001p6-6K for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 03:24:47 -0800 Received: by mail-wg0-f55.google.com with SMTP id a1sf1709027wgh.0 for ; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 03:24:39 -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=8SaHbYXZaGmUSluF8n3JndQTLwm1+tQWPepREaN/+6Y=; b=u93OK1md6NP0PURo5xc578TgMl1HFk+CG3l+RTYSXtYmJox986DGWeId47Ncj/ZAS5 YLE6NhXcWUptPLOUjgYnDVmDkrfOC9OHM20XRZcyEpsvmKWqB+/nreV7rqJykoeFbksn jrNFbnD8cB+4nesA0yfU4vlnwaD6OkE39zxww7f39hqkeED95uKxLXlDIh8py1cWdn0H pMhP/HZuSbjkbdWRVz31vYqdXuK1vcFnm7SPvowPIgNV2PhFxWwXK3e0bWSkjEy5xRDY gZo33Q1vUfPnqkdMP7tk/WyirxwckDDGPF1wYCP9WjfbYoy+h1P2ic9WIYUEh6sYNH2k QLDA== X-Received: by 10.180.19.100 with SMTP id d4mr7915wie.10.1423221879601; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 03:24:39 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.180.19.196 with SMTP id h4ls120359wie.39.gmail; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 03:24:39 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.180.109.132 with SMTP id hs4mr206821wib.1.1423221879166; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 03:24:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wi0-x234.google.com (mail-wi0-x234.google.com. [2a00:1450:400c:c05::234]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l18si70743wiv.1.2015.02.06.03.24.39 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 06 Feb 2015 03:24:39 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::234 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c05::234; Received: by mail-wi0-f180.google.com with SMTP id h11so1638358wiw.1 for ; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 03:24:39 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.194.158.234 with SMTP id wx10mr6723963wjb.23.1423221879042; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 03:24:39 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.194.86.200 with HTTP; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 03:24:18 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Gleki Arxokuna Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2015 14:24:18 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] the myth of monoparsing To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013c625c89790c050e69aa53 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::234 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: 2015-02-06 14:07 GMT+03:00 And Rosta : > > On 6 Feb 2015 06:56, "Gleki Arxokuna" wrote: > > > > > > > > 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. > > 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. > [...] 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) [74.125.82.55 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 --089e013c625c89790c050e69aa53 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 2015-02-06 14:07 GMT+03:00 And Rosta : > > On 6 Feb 2015 06:56, "Gleki Arxokuna" wrote: > > > > > > > > 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. > > 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. > It's not fair game when you are comparing two things using different tools. > > 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. > What is the dog here? > > > > 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". > oh, sorry. Let me try to clarify. I mean that there are several clauses floating in space and to which haeds they are attached is not known. This is what happens both in the English and in the Lojban examples. When you apply standard ways of dealing with the English sentence you get syntactical ambiguity. When you apply Lojban parsers you get monoparsing. 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. > Yes, and this is how I view the English sentence in question. 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. > It can't even be shown how Lojban syntax could be ambiguous. It is just explained in such a way that the question of polyparsing never raises. It's all a matter of different terminology. --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. --089e013c625c89790c050e69aa53 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


2015-02-06 14:07 GMT+03:00 And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>:

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.co= m> wrote:
>> =C2=A0
>> >
>> > I only started this to understand how monoparsing in Lojban i= s different from English.
>> > If one sentence can be expanded into two distinct syntactic t= rees by applying precise numbers instead of imprecise {mo'e zo'e} t= hen it's still monoparsing of course.
>> >
>> > What makes me wonder is why English can't be called monop= arsed. 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 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).
>>
>> 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 En= glish sentence phonology there usually corresponds more than one sentence m= eaning -- 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, d= eny that Lojban can be syntactically ambiguous. For syntactic ambiguity you= need two sentences with different logicosyntactic forms and the same phono= logical form. That doesn't occur with Lojban.


=
It's not fair game when you are comparing two things using d= ifferent tools.
=C2=A0

> If you call this vagueness then Lojban is similarly vag= ue.
>
> 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 c= ats and dogs then you're going to think that dogs look, walk and smell = like cats.

What is the dog here?=C2=A0

>
> Shall we rephrase the statement into the following?
>
> "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".

I recognize that that is your view. To me it currentl= y seems as though you don't understand what syntax is, given that you t= hink there is such a thing as "syntactic vagueness".


oh, sorry. Let me try to clarify.
I mean = that there are several clauses floating in space and to which haeds they ar= e attached is not known.
This is what happens both in the English= and in the Lojban examples.

When you apply standa= rd ways of dealing with the English sentence you get syntactical ambiguity.=

When you apply Lojban parsers you get =C2=A0monop= arsing.

= Or, let me phrase that more charitably: your understanding of the notion &q= uot;syntax" appears to differ from other lojbanists' and linguisti= cians'. I think you might be calling "syntax" not the encoded= logicosyntactic form but the enriched "logical explicature" deri= ved 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 monopar= sing claim is that every sentential phonological form corresponds to no mor= e than one logicosyntactic form, not that the logicosyntactic form it corre= sponds to can be interpreted as no more than one logical explicature.

Yes, and this is how I view the English sentence in questio= n.

To avoid misunderstanding: I recognize that Lojban syntax do= esn'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.

It can't even be shown how Lojban syntax could be am= biguous.=C2=A0

It is just explained in such a way = that the question of polyparsing never raises.
It's all a mat= ter of different terminology.

--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.
--089e013c625c89790c050e69aa53--