Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c03::22a as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c03::22a;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAO7bV+h3_2wZbkfceqVGPHjijeFBQ841+Aorc3YZqr3fTuLiyw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO7bV+hCaoyETCeVJufDxBrgnaKgqfT1eOLFFduYWadScpO2RQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<441592822.1242464.1422477652226.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
	<CAO7bV+iM0Qkc_N9ABZxfh8y193jY-P4NhX-+3PQgL7Uzmtp2-Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACf3dPm5NZOuVK_6fNmY1Y-=-emq7x85T-_4yGA3E21UFGrGFg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAO7bV+hPPUReacaMbj0i_vSbFNgh6M7cjb4EG22hcTb8PbM_2A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACf3dP=mNU4shpb4XJ=o3+QO6nrehXG-5XaUKQ=yrT_h3OwwNA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAO7bV+h-0C6rBLzPFom46Oezc-FTRcwT9TFYMxV-BJuHk39scw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACf3dP=TZmb+Ttzs9897q+=54SzD=SvbRYCgATjrJ7KW7kT2uQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAO7bV+hkh+i-7d-L79cBibWfF1RwzSppbVO1jB6jye+rS-eH7w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACf3dPkasizEzU=Yq8xm=tSa5H7iFaJtSJHV-NSJcEk+2H=CKw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAO7bV+h3_2wZbkfceqVGPHjijeFBQ841+Aorc3YZqr3fTuLiyw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2015 19:28:24 +0000
Message-ID: <CACf3dP=SirQvG=if1PQucev-HwHZQqPWTWG97Fa4Nf8LUSm9rQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Questions about Lojban
From: And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bdcab849754d5050e706c66
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 11:33, "Gleki Arxokuna" <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>
    wrote: > > > > 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: >> > 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. [...] 
 
 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)
                             [74.125.82.62 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

--047d7bdcab849754d5050e706c66
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On 6 Feb 2015 11:33, "Gleki Arxokuna" <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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:
>> > 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.

The possible structures that result from attaching the clauses exist only
because they are generated by syntactic combinatoric rules, and they
correspond to the sentence phonology only by virtue of the rules that
define correspondences between phonological and syntactic forms. Those
separate syntactically generated structures are the different syntaxes of
the ambiguous sentence. The impossible structures that don't result from
attaching the clauses in illicit ways are not generated by the combinatoric
rules.

Your idea isn't stupid: in principle a sentence's syntax might consist of
more than one completely discrete fragment, which get integrated into a
single logical explicature during the process of utterance interpretation.
But nevertheless with respect to holding this view, you are in a minority
of approximately one, and the majority contains many lifetimes devoted to
the study of syntax in general and English syntax in particular. If you
become a syntactician of English then you and I can compare our respective
theories. Were you able to write a substantial grammar based on your
"juxtaposed fragments" idea, it would certainly be original and intriguing,
tho of course my money is against it being credible.

Your belief that monoparsing is a myth seems to be intimately bound up with
a deeply eccentric theory of English syntax that bravely discards the work
of all syntacticians who have preceded you. I am not yet persuaded to
abandon the current paradigm and embrace your new one.

Again, I invoke the wisdom of the majority just in order for you to
understand why you're not agreed with.

> My Lojban translation shows that as well.

I don't believe Lojban translations can tell us anything about English
syntax.

> 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.

I don't understand this at all.

--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.

--047d7bdcab849754d5050e706c66
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<p dir=3D"ltr"><br>
On 6 Feb 2015 11:33, &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; 2015-02-06 14:27 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 29 Jan 2015 15:57, &quot;Gleki Arxokuna&quot; &lt;<a href=3D"ma=
ilto:gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com">gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<=
br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; You have a sentence.<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; You interpret it.<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; After this interpretation you call it ambiguous.<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; 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.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; I don&#39;t perceive the English sentence in question as ambiguous the=
n. It just has several clause not explicitly attached to a certain head. </=
p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">The possible structures that result from attaching the claus=
es exist only because they are generated by syntactic combinatoric rules, a=
nd they correspond to the sentence phonology only by virtue of the rules th=
at define correspondences between phonological and syntactic forms. Those s=
eparate syntactically generated structures are the different syntaxes of th=
e ambiguous sentence. The impossible structures that don&#39;t result from =
attaching the clauses in illicit ways are not generated by the combinatoric=
 rules.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Your idea isn&#39;t stupid: in principle a sentence&#39;s sy=
ntax might consist of more than one completely discrete fragment, which get=
 integrated into a single logical explicature during the process of utteran=
ce interpretation. But nevertheless with respect to holding this view, you =
are in a minority of approximately one, and the majority contains many life=
times devoted to the study of syntax in general and English syntax in parti=
cular. If you become a syntactician of English then you and I can compare o=
ur respective theories. Were you able to write a substantial grammar based =
on your &quot;juxtaposed fragments&quot; idea, it would certainly be origin=
al and intriguing, tho of course my money is against it being credible.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Your belief that monoparsing is a myth seems to be intimatel=
y bound up with a deeply eccentric theory of English syntax that bravely di=
scards the work of all syntacticians who have preceded you. I am not yet pe=
rsuaded to abandon the current paradigm and embrace your new one.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Again, I invoke the wisdom of the majority just in order for=
 you to understand why you&#39;re not agreed with.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">&gt; My Lojban translation shows that as well.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">I don&#39;t believe Lojban translations can tell us anything=
 about English syntax.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">&gt; If English parsers don&#39;t have {zo&#39;e} then it=
9;s a matter of theory to add {zo&#39;e} as a zero morpheme and the English=
 sentence =C2=A0will magically become unambiguous.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">I don&#39;t understand this at all. </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 />

--047d7bdcab849754d5050e706c66--