Received: from mail-wi0-f192.google.com ([209.85.212.192]:37894) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YJhAB-0001tW-LF for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 03:33:32 -0800 Received: by mail-wi0-f192.google.com with SMTP id r20sf278270wiv.9 for ; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 03:33:25 -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=v3qcq+r+dAtZdMoCZWTjEzqqGaRoCJ/20BeeR5hsmGk=; b=mEgnsgkQx6hrYQTG1nmOpG9Kdihls/BFguYV2I6YM40kbymkJZT/3K1lonWdQLlneJ h0XTRObfXq3O7Clugvpz2MC8gauxYAzwFMWxZ2kAvQm7yf2owUgHVKHVufAP6Z28MQAM 7WfCfluVdRHGw05+04QbY2skxxTRerhpjxhh0w8abmdeFtFLb5f08BoVfq8MVQhF44nQ Xsir1JrFhR5Y0Ic/EbZ+SE61q/RFARxoJ4pjl7vfJlcNZlF0MASmXhGq8MWhXIvA6URx oJkSJUiI3nA/EVwm0GBv5L9qg7FA34DawidFK27cPAiKIAE6aVyI6AjMHpmzIrD3J+1D dIyA== X-Received: by 10.152.36.106 with SMTP id p10mr23838laj.39.1423222404967; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 03:33:24 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.152.182.140 with SMTP id ee12ls275984lac.1.gmail; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 03:33:24 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.112.124.142 with SMTP id mi14mr373604lbb.1.1423222404142; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 03:33:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-we0-x22c.google.com (mail-we0-x22c.google.com. [2a00:1450:400c:c03::22c]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ev8si62058wib.3.2015.02.06.03.33.24 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 06 Feb 2015 03:33:24 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c03::22c as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c03::22c; Received: by mail-we0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id x3so7545625wes.3 for ; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 03:33:24 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.194.60.205 with SMTP id j13mr6887943wjr.42.1423222403815; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 03:33:23 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.194.86.200 with HTTP; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 03:33:02 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <441592822.1242464.1422477652226.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> From: Gleki Arxokuna Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2015 14:33:02 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Questions about Lojban To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b86de4ed0dd51050e69c974 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:c03::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: 2015-02-06 14:27 GMT+03:00 And Rosta : > > 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, [...] 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_H2 RBL: Average reputation (+2) [209.85.212.192 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 --047d7b86de4ed0dd51050e69c974 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 2015-02-06 14:27 GMT+03:00 And Rosta : > > 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. > I don't perceive the English sentence in question as ambiguous then. It just has several clause not explicitly attached to a certain head. My Lojban translation shows that as well. > > > 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 English sentence as well. If English parsers don't have {zo'e} then it's a matter of theory to add {zo'e} as a zero morpheme and the English sentence will magically become unambiguous. > 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. > -- 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. --047d7b86de4ed0dd51050e69c974 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


2015-02-06 14:27 GMT+03:00 And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>:

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.c= om> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 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.i= s.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > 2015-01-28 23:40 GMT+03:00 'John E Cliff= ord' via lojban <lojban@googlegroups.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 amb= iguous, which means that it belongs to a group of sentences with the same p= honology and different logicosyntax. Then you disambiguate (select a senten= ce). Then you interpret it.


I don&#= 39;t perceive the English sentence in question as ambiguous then. It just h= as several clause not explicitly attached to a certain head. My Lojban tran= slation shows that as well.

>
> 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 English senten= ce as well. If English parsers don't have {zo'e} then it's a ma= tter of theory to add {zo'e} as a zero morpheme and the English sentenc= e =C2=A0will magically become unambiguous.

> 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 sele= ct a particular sentence and logicosyntactic form, with interpretation, whe= reby you progressively enrich the encoded meaning until you arrive at the p= roposition you conclude the speaker intends to communicate. If you are doin= g 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.

<= span class=3D"HOEnZb">

--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.
--047d7b86de4ed0dd51050e69c974--