Received: from mail-la0-f58.google.com ([209.85.215.58]:41625) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YJh4Y-0001qP-PG for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 03:27:43 -0800 Received: by lamq1 with SMTP id q1sf65911lam.8 for ; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 03:27:36 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from: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=T0PvO0xgDJ6eD7N4B/qDuSJ6eU1AxfxFt6lVPCuRZ2Y=; b=MzWwkA5UWFZdmZD6aGkJMPlt8Xy8/If5PdqfXTWpFt95bx8aDDes7iGSPjavYXjkzT a9bTP3Rc9hqy2+ZndZhfmmz3Qvz+xxExGqxqyaPnj8A3NVsJckeElQv6p57FUTq5BMWi 3ySa6iYGXbdYQcCv2Y6YymmDa4LZ+866fjbEcOS781BWc9MO5v4q1PfTlRNxrX8acCkj lnj2U/iB1mmerVBJDgkKkXzwuWn50tbcItqIEmlf+X3wEAQvb7RyQR+jF2g0aDsiKjTZ QGRx3FXwuy614sWWVe+gbkl/9dxVzNmhQ6VJ2ZeDzzS7x8CXeeXqK6gisSK2Z426ftC/ zIJg== X-Received: by 10.180.39.75 with SMTP id n11mr8219wik.9.1423222055988; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 03:27:35 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.180.95.232 with SMTP id dn8ls120846wib.15.canary; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 03:27:35 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.194.161.194 with SMTP id xu2mr376303wjb.1.1423222055582; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 03:27:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-we0-x234.google.com (mail-we0-x234.google.com. [2a00:1450:400c:c03::234]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o9si80065wiw.0.2015.02.06.03.27.35 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 06 Feb 2015 03:27:35 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c03::234 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c03::234; Received: by mail-we0-f180.google.com with SMTP id m14so13057271wev.11 for ; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 03:27:35 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.59.112 with SMTP id y16mr6765980wjq.36.1423222055448; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 03:27:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.27.132.70 with HTTP; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 03:27:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.27.132.70 with HTTP; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 03:27:35 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <441592822.1242464.1422477652226.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2015 11:27:35 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Questions about Lojban From: And Rosta To: lojban@googlegroups.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7ba97cc40d3741050e69b5e7 X-Original-Sender: and.rosta@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c03::234 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=and.rosta@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: On 29 Jan 2015 15:57, "Gleki Arxokuna" wrote: > > > 2015-01-29 18:20 GMT+03:00 And Rosta : >> >> >> On 29 Jan 2015 10:48, "Gleki Arxokuna" wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > 2015-01-29 13:25 GMT+03:00 And Rosta : >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Gleki Arxokuna < gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> 2015-01-29 10:35 GMT+03:00 And Rosta : >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> On 29 Jan 2015 06:38, "Gleki Arxokuna" wrote: >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > 2015-01-28 23:40 GMT+03:00 'John E Clifford' via lojban < lojban@googlegroups.com>: >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> There are clearly two valid parses for the English. >> >>>> > >> >>>> > Why are you saying that the English sentence has two parses? >> >>>> >> >>>> Because it does have two (in fact, three) parses. In one, "flying" is an adverbial adjunct (of "saw") with controlled subject; in a second, it is "object complement" (predicate in a small-clausal complement of "saw"); in a third, it is adjunct of "plane". >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Of course, this can be a rival explanation but are those different parses due to ambiguity of the syntactic tree? >> >> >> >> >> >> Yes. >> > >> > >> > Where this ambiguity arises? >> >> I don't know if I understand your question. >> >> > Isn't it easier to state that "-ing" attaches to uncertain heads just like {calonu zo'e} does in Lojban ? >> >> No. The three syntactic structures I describe are independently warranted; they're not invented just to account for this sentence's ambiguity. Sometimes syntactically different sentences just happen to have the same phonology; that's the very definition of ambiguity. > > You have a sentence. > You interpret it. > After this interpretation you call it ambiguous. [...] 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) [209.85.215.58 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 --047d7ba97cc40d3741050e69b5e7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On 29 Jan 2015 15:57, "Gleki Arxokuna" wrote: > > > 2015-01-29 18:20 GMT+03:00 And Rosta : >> >> >> On 29 Jan 2015 10:48, "Gleki Arxokuna" wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > 2015-01-29 13:25 GMT+03:00 And Rosta : >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Gleki Arxokuna < gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> 2015-01-29 10:35 GMT+03:00 And Rosta : >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> On 29 Jan 2015 06:38, "Gleki Arxokuna" wrote: >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > 2015-01-28 23:40 GMT+03:00 'John E Clifford' via lojban < lojban@googlegroups.com>: >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> There are clearly two valid parses for the English. >> >>>> > >> >>>> > Why are you saying that the English sentence has two parses? >> >>>> >> >>>> Because it does have two (in fact, three) parses. In one, "flying" is an adverbial adjunct (of "saw") with controlled subject; in a second, it is "object complement" (predicate in a small-clausal complement of "saw"); in a third, it is adjunct of "plane". >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Of course, this can be a rival explanation but are those different parses due to ambiguity of the syntactic tree? >> >> >> >> >> >> Yes. >> > >> > >> > Where this ambiguity arises? >> >> I don't know if I understand your question. >> >> > Isn't it easier to state that "-ing" attaches to uncertain heads just like {calonu zo'e} does in Lojban ? >> >> No. The three syntactic structures I describe are independently warranted; they're not invented just to account for this sentence's ambiguity. Sometimes syntactically different sentences just happen to have the same phonology; that's the very definition of ambiguity. > > You have a sentence. > You interpret it. > After this interpretation you call it ambiguous. No, not at all. You have a sentence, which may be ambiguous, which means that it belongs to a group of sentences with the same phonology and different logicosyntax. Then you disambiguate (select a sentence). Then you interpret it. > > But this is how Lojban sentence works as well. > {ca lo nu se xi vei mo'e zo'e} after the interpretation leads us to the conclusion that: > {mo'e zo'e} can take the value 1 or 2. > > They are not invented just to account for this sentence's ambiguity. As far as I can see, the Lojban is unambiguous, with just a single logicosyntactic form. > And I disagree that the English sentence has any ambiguity by itself. After you interpret it - then yes. You seem to conflate disambiguation, whereby you select a particular sentence and logicosyntactic form, with interpretation, whereby you progressively enrich the encoded meaning until you arrive at the proposition you conclude the speaker intends to communicate. If you are doing that intentionally, it may not be possible for the rest of us to dissuade you, but at least you might understand why we think you are mistaken. --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. --047d7ba97cc40d3741050e69b5e7 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On 29 Jan 2015 15:57, "Gleki Arxokuna" <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 2015-01-29 18:20 GMT+03:00 And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>:
>>
>>
>> On 29 Jan 2015 10:48, "Gleki Arxokuna" <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:<= br> >> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 2015-01-29 13:25 GMT+03:00 And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>= wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> 2015-01-29 10:35 GMT+03:00 And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On 29 Jan 2015 06:38, "Gleki Arxokuna" = <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.co= m> wrote:
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > 2015-01-28 23:40 GMT+03:00 'John E Cliff= ord' via lojban <lojban@g= ooglegroups.com>:
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> There are clearly two valid parses for t= he English.=C2=A0
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > Why are you saying that the English sentence= has two parses?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Because it does have two (in fact, three) parses.= In one, "flying" is an adverbial adjunct (of "saw") wi= th controlled subject; in a second, it is "object complement" (pr= edicate in a small-clausal complement of "saw"); in a third, it i= s adjunct of "plane".
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Of course, this can be a rival explanation but are th= ose different parses due to ambiguity of the syntactic tree?
>> >>
>> >> =C2=A0
>> >> Yes.
>> >
>> >
>> > Where this ambiguity arises?
>>
>> I don't know if I understand your question.
>>
>> > Isn't it easier to state that "-ing" attaches t= o uncertain heads just like {calonu zo'e} does in Lojban ?
>>
>> No. The three syntactic structures I describe are independently wa= rranted; they're not invented just to account for this sentence's a= mbiguity. Sometimes syntactically different sentences just happen to have t= he same phonology; that's the very definition of ambiguity.
>
> You have a sentence.
> You interpret it.
> After this interpretation you call it ambiguous.

No, not at all. You have a sentence, which may be ambiguous,= which means that it belongs to a group of sentences with the same phonolog= y and different logicosyntax. Then you disambiguate (select a sentence). Th= en you interpret it.

>
> But this is how Lojban sentence works as well.
> {ca lo nu se xi vei mo'e zo'e} =C2=A0after the interpretation = leads us to the conclusion that:
> {mo'e zo'e} can take the value 1 or 2.
>
> They are not invented just to account for this sentence's ambiguit= y.

As far as I can see, the Lojban is unambiguous, with just a = single logicosyntactic form.

> And I disagree that the English sentence has any ambigu= ity by itself. After you interpret it - then yes.

You seem to conflate disambiguation, whereby you select a pa= rticular sentence and logicosyntactic form, with interpretation, whereby yo= u progressively enrich the encoded meaning until you arrive at the proposit= ion you conclude the speaker intends to communicate. If you are doing that = intentionally, it may not be possible for the rest of us to dissuade you, b= ut at least you might understand why we think you are mistaken.

--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+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.
--047d7ba97cc40d3741050e69b5e7--