Received: from mail-wg0-f61.google.com ([74.125.82.61]:34405) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YJoxj-0001vU-Dw for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 11:53:12 -0800 Received: by mail-wg0-f61.google.com with SMTP id y19sf2319148wgg.6 for ; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 11:53:04 -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=FLFWeTy/Llt7H4mfxTlmY/Ik5VRveE0B8I3Lz7OZeME=; b=QpDDv2+ywEEwMYp9LcBZpxh03VzsSTWaLbBRYAe4jFAHZbC305RC9OtvqkGkW5wKKm BLweiRzOYKUfDseLMrVpKq9X7rT42Up/46ApQXqhU0T3cyj7vEiWLC+VCQsEMmJSY8in 6uHEvW+XYJYW2K3XAjn5x+0GrpIFOhMbQeifV9HnhD0poQ9mzsZV6Xc78PLaSuMD50D5 YP8QSk56xTQ8plUnX8RqCncl101nUdcrqrvc1NiVSeaxqeuKQ7uAv6UvDoJLyLBcgDRT B4iVijlq1utde+CZrtAvjczbEnAsHXKNCZQ8PRWcT+JYyWrqpvqHhl+Cq9POWHOyKTrJ sx/g== X-Received: by 10.152.115.170 with SMTP id jp10mr49817lab.27.1423252384616; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 11:53:04 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.152.207.71 with SMTP id lu7ls335292lac.40.gmail; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 11:53:03 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.112.143.167 with SMTP id sf7mr685283lbb.0.1423252383737; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 11:53:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wg0-x22f.google.com (mail-wg0-x22f.google.com. [2a00:1450:400c:c00::22f]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ev8si199537wib.3.2015.02.06.11.53.03 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 06 Feb 2015 11:53:03 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c00::22f as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c00::22f; Received: by mail-wg0-f47.google.com with SMTP id n12so15623011wgh.6 for ; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 11:53:03 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.104.34 with SMTP id gb2mr6794854wib.7.1423252383535; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 11:53:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.27.132.70 with HTTP; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 11:53:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.27.132.70 with HTTP; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 11:53:03 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2015 19:53:03 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] the myth of monoparsing From: And Rosta To: lojban@googlegroups.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d044271b0bf17e8050e70c4cd 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:c00::22f 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 12:18, "Gleki Arxokuna" wrote: > > > > 2015-02-06 15:01 GMT+03:00 And Rosta : >> >> >> On 6 Feb 2015 11:24, "Gleki Arxokuna" >> > 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). > > > The parser must choose???? [...] 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) [74.125.82.61 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 --f46d044271b0bf17e8050e70c4cd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On 6 Feb 2015 12:18, "Gleki Arxokuna" wrote: > > > > 2015-02-06 15:01 GMT+03:00 And Rosta : >> >> >> On 6 Feb 2015 11:24, "Gleki Arxokuna" >> > 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). > > > The parser must choose???? Where the parser is something that takes phonetic or graphic input and outputs an utterance interpretation. If your parser is just something that takes a sentence phonology and outputs the set of syntactic forms it may correspond to, the parser doesn't choose, but rather the choosing is done by the process that operates on the output of the parser. > But then this is a very critical limitation of the parser? > Since when parsers HAVE TO attach to heads that aren't vague or can be derived from context? > If an English parser used an analog to {zo'e} as some zero morpheme then a lot of (may be all but nobody knows) allegedly ambiguous sentences would become vague. > > If the theory of strictly applying relative clause to head of exact numbers isn't sufficient then a new theory that allows attaching to head No. {mo'e zo'e} has to be developed. I don't understand any of these sentences. > Similarly, if you disallow parsing {se xi vei mo'e zo'e nei} then one could devise a workaround that would split such sentences into several like it currently happens to parsers of natlangs. My understanding of Lojban *would* allow parsing of that bit of Lojban, as a single sentence. But I say that without actually having understood what that fragment means. > It seems that Lojbanists created a parser and a language that is too powerful to be easily adopted to parsing natlangs. (Which is probably to the lack of information about Lojban in the world but that's another story). I didn't understand these sentences either. >> >> 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. > > > Then this is a useless term that only states that parsers for other languages lag behind in their development. If you are suggesting that the Lojban parser is technically advanced relative to natlang parsers, then that is just silly -- probably too silly for it to be worth continuing this discussion. But if you mean just that Lojban parsers are more successful at parsing Lojban than natlang parsers are at parsing natlangs, then that is obviously true because Lojban is simpler and unambiguous. >> For the Zurich sentence, there are no rules of English that say "this phonological form can correspond to any of these n logicosyntactic forms". > > > Haven't you assumed that the logicosyntactical form can be only one, not several of them? I don't get what you mean. >> 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. > > You are starting from theory. But note that both sentences produce the same interpretation, the same 4 possible interpretations. If that's true -- I haven't checked (and couldn't because I don't understand the Lojban) -- then it's coincidence. > > If this happens then it might be that either the problem is in terminology and/or in theory that is unable to find the same structure in both sentences. > > Of course one sentence isn't enough but I can try translating other examples e.g. for one type of syntactic tree to avoid delving into numerous issues. Explain to me what your hypothesis is, and how you propose to test it. Then perhaps I can seek some ambiguous English sentences for you to work on. --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. --f46d044271b0bf17e8050e70c4cd Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On 6 Feb 2015 12:18, "Gleki Arxokuna" <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> 2015-02-06 15:01 GMT+03:00 And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>:
>>
>>
>> On 6 Feb 2015 11:24, "Gleki Arxokuna"
>> > I mean that there are several clauses floating in space and t= o which haeds they are attached is not known.
>>
>> From the point of view of the parser, this is true. The possible a= ttachments licenced by the grammar are known, but the parser must choose am= ong them (which is disambiguation).
>
>
> The parser must choose????

Where the parser is something that takes phonetic or graphic= input and outputs an utterance interpretation.

If your parser is just something that takes a sentence phono= logy and outputs the set of syntactic forms it may correspond to, the parse= r doesn't choose, but rather the choosing is done by the process that o= perates on the output of the parser.

> But then this is a very critical limitation of the pars= er?
> Since when parsers HAVE TO attach to heads that aren't vague or ca= n be derived from context?
> If an English parser used an analog to {zo'e} as some zero morphem= e then a lot of (may be all but nobody knows) allegedly ambiguous sentences= would become vague.
>
> If the theory of strictly applying relative clause to head of exact nu= mbers isn't sufficient then a new theory that allows attaching to head = =C2=A0No. {mo'e zo'e} has to be developed.

I don't understand any of these sentences.

> Similarly, if you disallow parsing {se xi vei mo'e = zo'e nei} then one could devise a workaround that would split such sent= ences into several like it currently happens to parsers of natlangs.

My understanding of Lojban *would* allow parsing of that bit= of Lojban, as a single sentence. But I say that without actually having un= derstood what that fragment means.

> It seems that Lojbanists created a parser and a languag= e that is too powerful to be easily adopted to parsing natlangs. (Which is = probably to the lack of information about Lojban in the world but that'= s another story).

I didn't understand these sentences either.

>>
>> So if you call this syntactic vagueness and everybody else calls i= t syntactic ambiguity, let us agree to tolerate your terminological eccentr= icity.
>>
>> > This is what happens both in the English and in the Lojban ex= amples.
>>
>> It could be that that is what happens with Lojban -- since no expl= icit grammar of Lojban exists, we can't say for sure -- but Lojban'= s design principles are committed to the principle of no syntactic ambiguit= y (which, following John Clifford, we call 'monoparsing'), and if t= hat principle is respected then the Lojban example does not work in the way= the English one does.
>
>
> Then this is a useless term that only states that parsers for other la= nguages lag behind in their development.

If you are suggesting that the Lojban parser is technically = advanced relative to natlang parsers, then that is just silly -- probably t= oo silly for it to be worth continuing this discussion. But if you mean jus= t that Lojban parsers are more successful at parsing Lojban than natlang pa= rsers are at parsing natlangs, then that is obviously true because Lojban i= s simpler and unambiguous.

>> For the Zurich sentence, there are no rules of Engl= ish that say "this phonological form can correspond to any of these n = logicosyntactic forms".
>
>
> Haven't you assumed =C2=A0that the logicosyntactical form can be o= nly one, not several of them?

I don't get what you mean.

>> It's accidental that the rules for assigning ph= onological forms to logicosyntactic forms happen to assign certain logicosy= ntactic forms the same phonological form. For your=C2=A0 Lojban example, th= e conjectural rules of logicosyntax generate this single logically vague fo= rm, and assign it a phonological form that corresponds to no other logicosy= ntactic form.
>
> You are starting from theory. But note that both sentences produce the= same interpretation, the same 4 possible interpretations.

If that's true -- I haven't checked (and couldn'= t because I don't understand the Lojban) -- then it's coincidence.<= /p>

>
> If this happens then it might be that either the problem is in termino= logy and/or in theory that is unable to find the same structure in both sen= tences.
>
> Of course one sentence isn't enough but I can try translating othe= r examples e.g. for one type of syntactic tree to avoid delving into numero= us issues.

Explain to me what your hypothesis is, and how you propose t= o test it. Then perhaps I can seek some ambiguous English sentences for you= to work on.

--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.
--f46d044271b0bf17e8050e70c4cd--