Received: from mail-wg0-f58.google.com ([74.125.82.58]:62619) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YJhax-0002GQ-Bk for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 04:01:12 -0800 Received: by mail-wg0-f58.google.com with SMTP id z12sf1762923wgg.3 for ; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 04:01:04 -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=0ID25Gf+D+2uEiPoIBn6FXOnh1z9+qUgN+g8maHsKdU=; b=PZiNIxXW+0WGKQDE/ydS3gwUNjGoeMZEgvi8d+Ltv5Xadntu9BIRQQE2u39XJo5rig 4Dfu293xJ507UP4ypMwCU62xhdDOFYxnfhrlLVCdNLnR4g3xlKbqYvC23wu77qKc3bMn U7VNWpVFjkmLaRZPLH+p47yRnYg/5p8juISf8jK7OdGbjZNRbIRz0PjBCWIamm//NWyR JdLI4NtUqZp9I+AVKDtf4WXDcjtkxGCe2Qp9zOiBKTcYGf6ejKArJoIQ/IU7GSnT50Kb lkBFindvqGp2DMvdVt7a6uCVxUY235I4qeFQ1vuT9d3eGALLuNg5lV0G9Wllh0vZAlSl mH3w== X-Received: by 10.180.13.35 with SMTP id e3mr8620wic.12.1423224064409; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 04:01:04 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.180.218.163 with SMTP id ph3ls124742wic.32.canary; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 04:01:03 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.180.76.44 with SMTP id h12mr205235wiw.2.1423224063964; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 04:01:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wi0-x232.google.com (mail-wi0-x232.google.com. [2a00:1450:400c:c05::232]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id cl5si77216wib.3.2015.02.06.04.01.03 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 06 Feb 2015 04:01:03 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::232 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c05::232; Received: by mail-wi0-x232.google.com with SMTP id bs8so1845637wib.5 for ; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 04:01:03 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.88.193 with SMTP id bi1mr2658320wib.70.1423224063831; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 04:01:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.27.132.70 with HTTP; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 04:01:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.27.132.70 with HTTP; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 04:01:03 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2015 12:01:03 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] the myth of monoparsing From: And Rosta To: lojban@googlegroups.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04182654c2bd53050e6a2c27 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:c05::232 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 6 Feb 2015 11:24, "Gleki Arxokuna" >> > "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. [...] 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) [74.125.82.58 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 --f46d04182654c2bd53050e6a2c27 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On 6 Feb 2015 11:24, "Gleki Arxokuna" >> > "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. From the point of view of the parser, this is true. The possible attachments licenced by the grammar are known, but the parser must choose among them (which is disambiguation). So if you call this syntactic vagueness and everybody else calls it syntactic ambiguity, let us agree to tolerate your terminological eccentricity. > This is what happens both in the English and in the Lojban examples. It could be that that is what happens with Lojban -- since no explicit grammar of Lojban exists, we can't say for sure -- but Lojban's design principles are committed to the principle of no syntactic ambiguity (which, following John Clifford, we call 'monoparsing'), and if that principle is respected then the Lojban example does not work in the way the English one does. > > When you apply standard ways of dealing with the English sentence you get syntactical ambiguity. Yes. > When you apply Lojban parsers you get monoparsing. Yes. > >> 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. Most English sentences are probably logically vague in some way, but the standard view is that the English Zurich sentence is syntactically ambiguous. You know that that's the standard view, of course. I don't mean to try to crush you with an argument from authority, but pretty much every expert on English would consider the Zurich sentence syntactically ambiguous. And while the mere weight of authority alone should not suffice to make you change your opinion, at least you'll understand why you're unable to persuade anybody else that monoparsing is a myth. > >> 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. The same standards, terminology and analytical framework are being applied to both languages. For the Zurich sentence, there are no rules of English that say "this phonological form can correspond to any of these n logicosyntactic forms". It's accidental that the rules for assigning phonological forms to logicosyntactic forms happen to assign certain logicosyntactic forms the same phonological form. For your Lojban example, the conjectural rules of logicosyntax generate this single logically vague form, and assign it a phonological form that corresponds to no other logicosyntactic form. --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. --f46d04182654c2bd53050e6a2c27 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On 6 Feb 2015 11:24, "Gleki Arxokuna"
>> > "Lojban is one of the few languages (along with e.g. gua= \spi) that has such interesting syntactic parsers that they perceive some s= entences as syntactically vague whereas as of 2015 most English parsers per= ceive 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 th= ough 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 h= aeds they are attached is not known.

From the point of view of the parser, this is true. The poss= ible attachments licenced by the grammar are known, but the parser must cho= ose among them (which is disambiguation). So if you call this syntactic vag= ueness and everybody else calls it syntactic ambiguity, let us agree to tol= erate your terminological eccentricity.

> This is what happens both in the English and in the Loj= ban examples.

It could be that that is what happens with Lojban -- since n= o explicit grammar of Lojban exists, we can't say for sure -- but Lojba= n's design principles are committed to the principle of no syntactic am= biguity (which, following John Clifford, we call 'monoparsing'), an= d if that principle is respected then the Lojban example does not work in t= he way the English one does.

>
> When you apply standard ways of dealing with the English sentence you = get syntactical ambiguity.

Yes.

> When you apply Lojban parsers you get =C2=A0monoparsing= .

Yes.

>
>> 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 th= e encoded logicosyntactic form but the enriched "logical explicature&q= uot; derived from the encoded logicosyntactic form, which is a complete pro= position. 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". Th= e 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 explicatu= re.
>
> Yes, and this is how I view the English sentence in question.

Most English sentences are probably logically vague in some = way, but the standard view is that the English Zurich sentence is syntactic= ally ambiguous. You know that that's the standard view, of course. I do= n't mean to try to crush you with an argument from authority, but prett= y much every expert on English would consider the Zurich sentence syntactic= ally ambiguous. And while the mere weight of authority alone should not suf= fice to make you change your opinion, at least you'll understand why yo= u're unable to persuade anybody else that monoparsing is a myth.

>
>> To avoid misunderstanding: I recognize that Lojban syntax doesn= 9;t exist in any formal or explicit form, and that the claim that it is una= mbiguous is based simply on the design principle that no ambiguity is permi= tted and hence any syntax that allows ambiguity must be incorrect.
>
> It can't even be shown how Lojban syntax could be ambiguous.=C2=A0=
>
> It is just explained in such a way that the question of polyparsing ne= ver raises.
> It's all a matter of different terminology.

The same standards, terminology and analytical framework are= being applied to both languages.

For the Zurich sentence, there are no rules of English that = say "this phonological form can correspond to any of these n logicosyn= tactic forms". It's accidental that the rules for assigning phonol= ogical forms to logicosyntactic forms happen to assign certain logicosyntac= tic forms the same phonological form. For your=C2=A0 Lojban example, the co= njectural rules of logicosyntax generate this single logically vague form, = and assign it a phonological form that corresponds to no other logicosyntac= tic form.

--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.
--f46d04182654c2bd53050e6a2c27--