Received: from mail-la0-f64.google.com ([209.85.215.64]:35998) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YKlzL-0001Ca-Ma for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2015 02:54:49 -0800 Received: by labpn19 with SMTP id pn19sf951419lab.3 for ; Mon, 09 Feb 2015 02:54:40 -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=3cEnP/fsjhuqkXCUfcGapGsZqSkl8hdTfQGjGjuwvSc=; b=ygeRtC22g+J44jGaniJJhmfCphbAui80DgsXXIJ/kxOUZ7Ae+Fj5XMejVqDmeSI7Da jvOm2aNFTgDkyWpBpmoUQjz2Prcr8nqKIcYQRwr+I4N5PQvBAfSkFfuXZUgCwCtgkl9I a548sjVmNGaiX1aC8ow3mi0XTm2xNIOxy98FgPR6eeuJ9QQL4wZ+W5PuGsgIN92vY/BF 9s6PX97yuz/a1FECQf9QU7jDrJdOc7tL3MvVTw1iRwuNsTagQCN8W1I0nglfV0U/N8PN OY3Yu3yzlDuiSbg7oEF/khOTfiTPaMYqp4h9iLjaH4WMMAlvULewWa0HavtA1f+jFyAS QYxw== X-Received: by 10.152.20.170 with SMTP id o10mr124886lae.12.1423479280724; Mon, 09 Feb 2015 02:54:40 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.152.22.193 with SMTP id g1ls477562laf.14.gmail; Mon, 09 Feb 2015 02:54:39 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.112.171.37 with SMTP id ar5mr1724586lbc.16.1423479279828; Mon, 09 Feb 2015 02:54:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wi0-x229.google.com (mail-wi0-x229.google.com. [2a00:1450:400c:c05::229]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id i10si972186wiz.0.2015.02.09.02.54.39 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 09 Feb 2015 02:54:39 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::229 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c05::229; Received: by mail-wi0-x229.google.com with SMTP id z2so4794450wiv.0 for ; Mon, 09 Feb 2015 02:54:39 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.194.58.141 with SMTP id r13mr39056233wjq.144.1423479279686; Mon, 09 Feb 2015 02:54:39 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.194.86.200 with HTTP; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 02:54:19 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20150204124517.GA1243@kuebelreiter.informatik.Uni-Osnabrueck.DE> From: Gleki Arxokuna Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 13:54:19 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] the myth of monoparsing To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7ba97234cf9a69050ea598c7 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::229 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: 2015-02-08 4:34 GMT+03:00 ianek : > > > On Friday, February 6, 2015 at 8:13:30 AM UTC+1, la gleki wrote: >> >> >> >> 2015-02-04 15:45 GMT+03:00 v4hn : >> >>> On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 11:42:32AM +0300, Gleki Arxokuna wrote: >>> > "Fred saw a plane flying over Zurich" can have several meanings >>> >>> Yes. >>> However, for me, the issue here is that we (hopefully..) agree >>> that there are different parse trees (which yield the different >>> meanings). >>> >> >> No, several trees arise after you interpret the sentence. >> > > But if you had an English parser, it would yield several trees without any > interpreting. > [...] 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_H2 RBL: Average reputation (+2) [209.85.215.64 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 --047d7ba97234cf9a69050ea598c7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 2015-02-08 4:34 GMT+03:00 ianek : > > > On Friday, February 6, 2015 at 8:13:30 AM UTC+1, la gleki wrote: >> >> >> >> 2015-02-04 15:45 GMT+03:00 v4hn : >> >>> On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 11:42:32AM +0300, Gleki Arxokuna wrote: >>> > "Fred saw a plane flying over Zurich" can have several meanings >>> >>> Yes. >>> However, for me, the issue here is that we (hopefully..) agree >>> that there are different parse trees (which yield the different >>> meanings). >>> >> >> No, several trees arise after you interpret the sentence. >> > > But if you had an English parser, it would yield several trees without any > interpreting. > Sure! Because English parsers lack the ability to find something common in all of the parse trees. > Like this: > > "Fred saw a plane flying over Zurich" > NAME VERB-PAST ARTICLE COUNTABLE-NOUN VERB-ING PREPOSITION NAME > > Some (much simplified) rules could be: > > Sentence ::= Noun-Phrase Verb Noun-Phrase > Sentence ::= Noun-Phrase Verb Noun-Phrase Adverbial-Phrase > Noun-Phrase ::= NAME | ARTICLE COUNTABLE-NOUN | Noun-Phrase VERB-ING > Prepositional-Clause > Verb ::= VERB-PAST > Adverbial-Phrase ::= VERB-ING Preposition-Clause > Preposition-Clause ::= PREPOSITION Noun-Phrase > > This simple grammar yields two parse trees for that sentence: > > Sentence > ----Noun-Phrase > --------NAME > ------------Fred > ----Verb > --------VERB-PAST > ------------saw > ----Noun-Phrase > --------Noun-Phrase > ------------ARTICLE > ----------------a > ------------NOUN > ----------------plane > --------VERB-ING > ------------flying > --------Prepositional-Clause > ------------PROPOSITION > ----------------over > ------------Noun-Phrase > ----------------NAME > --------------------Zurich > > Sentence > ----Noun-Phrase > --------NAME > ------------Fred > ----Verb > --------VERB-PAST > ------------saw > ----Noun-Phrase > --------Noun-Phrase > ------------ARTICLE > ----------------a > ------------NOUN > ----------------plane > ----Adverbial-Phrase > --------VERB-ING > ------------flying > --------Prepositional-Clause > ------------PROPOSITION > ----------------over > ------------Noun-Phrase > ----------------NAME > --------------------Zurich > > Formal grammars for natural languages do exist, although they're not > perfect, but the problem with multiple grammatically sensible parses (often > millions of trees and more) is much greater than the problem with > nonsensible trees or correct sentences that don't parse at all. > > Lojban was carefully designed to avoid this problem. And it doesn't have > anything to do with {xi PA}. The Lojban grammar specifies XI clauses > unambiguously. Parse trees are unique. Monoparsing is not a myth. XI > clauses may add semantic ambiguity on a different level then, say, simple > {zo'e}, but it doesn't have anything to do with syntactic ambiguity. > It specifies to which head a clause should attach. And since it's {mo'e zo'e} it's vague to which head it attaches. If the parser you use doesn't allow for that the only thing that can be done is to provide several possible trees. > {la fred pu viska lo vinji do'e lo se xi vei mo'e zo'e nei poi vofli ga'u > la tsurix} has only one syntax tree, regardless of the number of possible > semantic interpretations. > If you applied {mo'e zo'e} to the English sentence you will still get the only syntax tree. > > In English you can have sentences that are semantically ambiguous due to > syntactic ambiguity. In Lojban you can have sentences with (roughly) the > same semantic ambiguity as the English ones, but syntactically unambiguous. > > >> >>> > {la fred pu viska lo vinji do'e lo se xi vei mo'e zo'e nei poi vofli >>> ga'u >>> > la tsurix} >>> >>> camxes only produces one parse tree for that. >>> >> >> And for English you don't provide any parses at all. >> May be someone should just parse the original English sentence as camxes >> does for Lojban one? >> I won't be surprised if such parser for English doesn't exist since those >> who write them might mix parsing and interpretation of it. The latter would >> be replacing {mo'e zo'e} with some PA which will immediately lead to >> several syntactic trees. >> >> So I both disagree and agree with you on whether English sentence has >> several syntactic trees. If using one term for two operations is stopped >> the contradiction disappears. >> >> >> >>> If you think it should produce more then one, raise a bug report. >>> >> >> I'm not aware of any Lojban parsers that perform interpretation >> operation. In most cases you just need context and one interpretation. But >> this is semantic analysis. Producing all possible syntactic trees is a task >> needed more seldom. >> > > Camxes is intended to produce all possible syntactic trees, and there's > only one of them for any valid sentence. > You may invent a Lojban parser that won't be able to parse {mo'e zo'e}. Then you will need workarounds to output several trees. > > mu'o mi'e ianek > > -- > 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. --047d7ba97234cf9a69050ea598c7 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


2015-02-08 4:34 GMT+03:00 ianek <janek37@gmail.com>:
=


On Friday, February= 6, 2015 at 8:13:30 AM UTC+1, la gleki wrote:


2015-02-04 15:45 GMT+03:00 v4hn <m...@v4hn.de>:
On Tue, Feb = 03, 2015 at 11:42:32AM +0300, Gleki Arxokuna wrote:
> "Fred saw a plane flying over Zurich" can have several meani= ngs

Yes.
However, for me, the issue here is that we (hopefully..) agree
that there are different parse trees (which yield the different meanings).<= br>

No, several trees arise after you inter= pret the sentence.

But = if you had an English parser, it would yield several trees without any inte= rpreting.

Sure! Because English= parsers lack the ability to find something common in all of the parse tree= s.
=C2=A0
Like this:

"Fred saw a plane flying o= ver Zurich"
NAME VERB-PAST ARTICLE COUNTABLE-NOUN VERB-ING P= REPOSITION NAME

Some (much simplified) rules could be:

Senten= ce ::=3D Noun-Phrase Verb Noun-Phrase
Sentence ::=3D Noun-Phrase Verb No= un-Phrase Adverbial-Phrase
Noun-Phrase ::=3D NAME | ARTICLE COUNTABLE-NO= UN | Noun-Phrase VERB-ING Prepositional-Clause
Verb ::=3D VERB-PAST
A= dverbial-Phrase ::=3D VERB-ING Preposition-Clause
Preposition-Clause ::= =3D PREPOSITION Noun-Phrase

This simple grammar yields two parse tre= es for that sentence:

Sentence
----Noun-Phrase
--------NAME------------Fred
----Verb
--------VERB-PAST
------------saw
--= --Noun-Phrase
--------Noun-Phrase
------------ARTICLE
------------= ----a
------------NOUN
----------------plane
--------VERB-ING
-= -----------flying
--------Prepositional-Clause
------------PROPOSITIO= N
----------------over
------------Noun-Phrase
----------------NAM= E
--------------------Zurich

Sentence
----Noun-Phrase
-----= ---NAME
------------Fred
----Verb
--------VERB-PAST
-----------= -saw
----Noun-Phrase
--------Noun-Phrase
------------ARTICLE
--= --------------a
------------NOUN
----------------plane
----Adverbi= al-Phrase
--------VERB-ING
------------flying
--------Prepositiona= l-Clause
------------PROPOSITION
----------------over
------------= Noun-Phrase
----------------NAME
--------------------Zurich

Fo= rmal grammars for natural languages do exist, although they're not perf= ect, but the problem with multiple grammatically sensible parses (often mil= lions of trees and more) is much greater than the problem with nonsensible = trees or correct sentences that don't parse at all.

Lojban was c= arefully designed to avoid this problem. And it doesn't have anything t= o do with {xi PA}. The Lojban grammar specifies XI clauses unambiguously. P= arse trees are unique. Monoparsing is not a myth. XI clauses may add semant= ic ambiguity on a different level then, say, simple {zo'e}, but it does= n't have anything to do with syntactic ambiguity.

It specifies to which head a clause should att= ach. And since it's {mo'e zo'e} it's vague to which head it= attaches. If the parser you use doesn't allow for that the only thing = that can be done is to provide several possible trees.

=
=C2=A0
{la fred pu viska lo vinji do'e lo se xi vei mo'e zo'e nei p= oi vofli ga'u la tsurix} has only one syntax tree, regardless of the nu= mber of possible semantic interpretations.

If you applied {mo'e zo'e} to the English sen= tence you will still get the only syntax tree.

In English you can have sentences th= at are semantically ambiguous due to syntactic ambiguity. In Lojban you can= have sentences with (roughly) the same semantic ambiguity as the English o= nes, but syntactically unambiguous.
=C2=A0
<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border= -left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">

> {la fred pu viska lo vinji do'e lo se xi vei mo'e zo'e nei= poi vofli ga'u
> la tsurix}

camxes only produces one parse tree for that.
<= br>
And for English you don't provide any parses at all.
May be someone should just parse the original English sentence as cam= xes does for Lojban one?
I won't be surprised if such parser = for English doesn't exist since those who write them might mix parsing = and interpretation of it. The latter would be replacing {mo'e zo'e}= with some PA which will immediately lead to several syntactic trees.
=

So I both disagree and agree with you on whether Englis= h sentence has several syntactic trees. If using one term for two operation= s is stopped the contradiction disappears.

=C2=A0<= /div>
If you think it should produce more then one, raise a bug report.

I'm not aware of any Lojban parsers that per= form interpretation operation. In most cases you just need context and one = interpretation. But this is semantic analysis. Producing all possible synta= ctic trees is a task needed more seldom.

Camxes is intended to produce all possible syntactic tree= s, and there's only one of them for any valid sentence.
=

You may invent a Lojban parser that won= 9;t be able to parse {mo'e zo'e}. Then you will need workarounds to= output several trees.
=C2=A0

mu'o mi'e ianek

--
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.
--047d7ba97234cf9a69050ea598c7--