Received: from mail-we0-f183.google.com ([74.125.82.183]:38102) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YKljH-0000vk-1I for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2015 02:38:12 -0800 Received: by mail-we0-f183.google.com with SMTP id q59sf2858106wes.0 for ; Mon, 09 Feb 2015 02:38:04 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references: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=myj/QT8HYBH06HJ23iQN+eFOV7n2dUtNCB/xvZtYyfs=; b=Ikme0gsUqIjwUaQC/quuInGlF/HhCff+7sNk8w0I7IiLKNBHtBfo02SW4oVLw5zWqr Lp8uyYlsdwD7A2orZKDydJb+T7rpSuTSNX957NcezO9aNo/oGXlrnyFPRmnlUQxNE3p1 1VezPUIUzmSme3iFILZ0zrP+9mAecMu6rwrG2rl6nSQeQDCeQcNJKCYucRwB4Vp7AoYr G37Mo27ZyHOmx9SdFqTBP6Pd9SrLjKKmiKQDx/PSrrerosFpzjUcql+3l8kaHeB3mO5x 6vHMpfWoDyV8RV3kxEifiUx3DE21ga7idt49lo3ADA3d9T2E0gzh13GCCEZcNt8YLta7 gv/w== X-Received: by 10.152.43.34 with SMTP id t2mr125569lal.42.1423478284140; Mon, 09 Feb 2015 02:38:04 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.152.28.6 with SMTP id x6ls537335lag.70.gmail; Mon, 09 Feb 2015 02:38:03 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.113.5.167 with SMTP id cn7mr1821461lbd.21.1423478283460; Mon, 09 Feb 2015 02:38:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wi0-x22d.google.com (mail-wi0-x22d.google.com. [2a00:1450:400c:c05::22d]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v6si970647wiz.2.2015.02.09.02.38.03 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 09 Feb 2015 02:38:03 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::22d as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c05::22d; Received: by mail-wi0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id bs8so2755493wib.0 for ; Mon, 09 Feb 2015 02:38:03 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.180.79.65 with SMTP id h1mr25508093wix.59.1423478283287; Mon, 09 Feb 2015 02:38:03 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.194.86.200 with HTTP; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 02:37:42 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <441592822.1242464.1422477652226.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> From: Gleki Arxokuna Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 13:37:42 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Questions about Lojban To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae9cc95346bc2a3050ea55d29 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:c05::22d 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: 2015-02-07 19:25 GMT+03:00 And Rosta : > > On 7 Feb 2015 06:26, "Gleki Arxokuna" wrote: > > > > > > 2015-02-06 22:28 GMT+03:00 And Rosta : > >> > >> 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. > > > > > > When did I say that monoparsing is a myth in general? > > Most prominently in titling the thread "The myth of monoparsing". > "monoparsing" first appears in the pycyn's paper. This is a clear reference to it. [...] 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) [74.125.82.183 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 -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL Mailspike good senders --14dae9cc95346bc2a3050ea55d29 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 2015-02-07 19:25 GMT+03:00 And Rosta : > > On 7 Feb 2015 06:26, "Gleki Arxokuna" wrote: > > > > > > 2015-02-06 22:28 GMT+03:00 And Rosta : > >> > >> 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. > > > > > > When did I say that monoparsing is a myth in general? > > Most prominently in titling the thread "The myth of monoparsing". > "monoparsing" first appears in the pycyn's paper. This is a clear reference to it. > > > > I said "Since the original post on monoparsing as something unique or > defining feature of Lojban provided no examples on how this monoparsing > differs from English " > > Fine, but the sentences of mine that you quoted above still apply to your > belief that monoparsing is not distinctive to Lojban but is shared with > natlangs. > I'm not proposing a new paradigm if you call "vaguely attach clauses to heads" a new paradigm. Similarly, one could disallow parsing {mo'e zo'e}. This will lead to disruption of monoparsing and cutting my translation into several sentences. But I'm not going to even add this to any issue list of Lojban parsers. It seems okay to me. Both ways (allowing vague attachment in English and disallowing {mo'e zo'e}) don't seem quite productive to me. The only thing they produce is misunderstaning in that Lojban is unique in monoparsing. And I provided a Russian example only to show that in terms of pragmatism being able to provide such "vague syntax" isn't a thing that is very necessary. It's not an alternative paradigm. It doesn't even make any hints at abandoning existing English parsers. At another level syntactic ambiguity turns into vagueness. And my complaint is that someone found one thing sweet and another thing red and decided that the first thing isn't sweet without even tasting it. Both languages are monoparsed and both languages are syntactically ambiguous. Why? Because their existing parsers (as of 2015) work in different ways. But this doesn't affect languages themselves. --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. --14dae9cc95346bc2a3050ea55d29 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


2015-02-07 19:25 GMT+03:00 And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>:


On 7 Feb 2015 06:26, "Gleki Arxokuna" <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>= wrote:
>
>
> 2015-02-06 22:28 GMT+03:00 And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>:
>>
>> Your belief that monoparsing is a myth seems to be intimately boun= d 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 persuade= d to abandon the current paradigm and embrace your new one.
>
>
> When did I say that monoparsing is a myth in general?

Most prominently in titling the thread "The myth= of monoparsing".

"monoparsing" first a= ppears in =C2=A0the pycyn's paper. This is a clear reference to it.=C2= =A0

>
> I said "Since the original post on monoparsing as something uniqu= e or defining feature of Lojban provided no examples on how this monoparsin= g differs from English=C2=A0"

Fine, but the sentences of mine that you quoted above= still apply to your belief that monoparsing is not distinctive to Lojban b= ut is shared with natlangs.


I'm not= proposing =C2=A0a new paradigm if you call "vaguely attach clauses to= heads" a new paradigm.

Similarly, one could = disallow parsing {mo'e zo'e}. This will lead to disruption of monop= arsing and cutting my translation into several sentences.

But=C2=A0I'm not going to even add this to any issue list of Lo= jban parsers.
It seems okay to me.

Both = ways (allowing vague attachment in English and disallowing {mo'e zo'= ;e}) don't seem quite productive to me.

The on= ly thing they produce is misunderstaning in that Lojban is unique in monopa= rsing.

And I provided a Russian example only to sh= ow that in terms of pragmatism being able to provide such "vague synta= x" isn't a thing that is very necessary.

<= div>It's not an alternative paradigm.
It doesn't even mak= e any hints at abandoning existing English parsers.
At another le= vel syntactic ambiguity turns into vagueness.

And = my complaint is that someone found one thing sweet and another thing red an= d decided that the first thing isn't sweet without even tasting it.

Both languages are monoparsed and both languages are = syntactically ambiguous.

Why? Because their existi= ng parsers (as of 2015) work in different ways.
But this doesn= 9;t affect languages themselves.


--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.
--14dae9cc95346bc2a3050ea55d29--