Received: from mail-qg0-f59.google.com ([209.85.192.59]:40547) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YKur8-00005c-2x for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2015 12:22:55 -0800 Received: by mail-qg0-f59.google.com with SMTP id f51sf6713306qge.4 for ; Mon, 09 Feb 2015 12:22:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version :content-type:x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe; bh=QUdjcmLHTdnDvrMiJDPt1QNNvfpjrcdgtGacUJbSFkg=; b=TnoBFzjapeIY+nlbUnOw73zGW5BU/weLHGfdDZAToICtZBUsdpP5ocp0q4SgMqW0o1 ChsIbKQVxBRvxGyMiWF3KJBVW6NwDdFxcDc+Qt4/fBKSDzkSK+6uImiiumi8LnhhWfVM dg+ce6d7gr7umb+7kkddfc2/uWn8rZNEFuzq0jgfKn1mifwR9+fTrtTNO7w9PSgvFGF2 +bx4SZwc/NLkWFzgnZn9B0632A5zZviqu2WCHsb9Zjt/Roh1t0jz6TqH1jEfep5whH2b 4yFh/ZP5OoJOId2nYr4QbqTnK3NAdDys05oT0X1csiWplwsr3eYH2wHM36Wm0Z3sketv pYrA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version :content-type:x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe; bh=QUdjcmLHTdnDvrMiJDPt1QNNvfpjrcdgtGacUJbSFkg=; b=Rkh37XKgd1MYP5q/mBpznbPF6Fo7/VSK9/KCqamDSXifwUizfHVMukyov5GI9AMm9E A2wuzdRlmQBGXa8zfTVQM7+5pLT4rw2S0hrCpsZOyXWBjDjxaVsxqiNbqvZywluxI1ft kUa5gZP1ZTfIAn9yQ9ZmyWJLy1TTAMpgpUEWNTr4kuzllkq6SMs/q1YgXYUn7IIQPgEl LmQGq5EwOMOcxXNcyoNudOZ9NLS7uKyzwZjd44BUiHh2hUwj0iVEjJjNTfiYxPfllAKD 5kJmCWavZzB7W6Li8UMkFE5VZJkBbQtL6SSi/pJAnhTYktdtLpljAA3IoadYoh2zJQ7L a/fQ== X-Received: by 10.140.16.55 with SMTP id 52mr200012qga.31.1423513368023; Mon, 09 Feb 2015 12:22:48 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.140.23.244 with SMTP id 107ls2496275qgp.18.gmail; Mon, 09 Feb 2015 12:22:47 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.140.93.136 with SMTP id d8mr208363qge.28.1423513367713; Mon, 09 Feb 2015 12:22:47 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 12:22:47 -0800 (PST) From: ianek To: lojban@googlegroups.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <20150204124517.GA1243@kuebelreiter.informatik.Uni-Osnabrueck.DE> Subject: Re: [lojban] the myth of monoparsing MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_880_773106448.1423513367311" X-Original-Sender: janek37@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: 0.7 (/) X-Spam_score: 0.7 X-Spam_score_int: 7 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 Monday, February 9, 2015 at 11:54:41 AM UTC+1, la gleki wrote: > > > > 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. > [...] Content analysis details: (0.7 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) [209.85.192.59 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 (janek37[at]gmail.com) 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_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 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 ------=_Part_880_773106448.1423513367311 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_881_1324007186.1423513367312" ------=_Part_881_1324007186.1423513367312 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 11:54:41 AM UTC+1, la gleki wrote: > > > > 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. > No. It's because words in an English sentence can be parsed as different syntactic structures. That's what parsing means: determining structures formed by words. Not "finding something common". > > >> 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. > It's a feature of a language, not a parser. If English had a pronoun, say, 'lar', which would mean 'the subject or the object of the main sentence', you could say "Fred saw a plane as lar flew over Zurich", which would be ambiguous semantically, but not syntactically. > >> > {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. > You can't "apply" {mo'e zo'e} to the English sentence, because it's not there. Likewise you don't "apply" {mo'e zo'e} to the Lojban sentence. You just parse it, because it's there. In English you can have phrases like 'X of Y of Z' which could be parsed as '(X of Y) of Z' or 'X of (Y of Z)'. In Lojban it's not possible, but you can say ''either (X of Y) of Z or X of (Y of Z)", which is not syntactically ambiguous. You can't apply "either... or" to the English sentence, because you can't parse words which aren't there. > >> 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. > XI clauses have an ambiguous syntax, so I don't see how I'd need workarounfds and several trees. Of course, I could invent a Lojban parser that won't be able to parse anything, but what's the point? {mo'e zo'e} from the parser's view is just MOhE KOhA. If I can't parse it, then I have an incomplete parser. What you mean sounds rather like a semantic analyzer, which is extremely hard for any language, including Lojban. mu'o mi'e ianek > > >> >> 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+un...@googlegroups.com . >> To post to this group, send email to loj...@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. ------=_Part_881_1324007186.1423513367312 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 11:54:41 AM UTC+1, = la gleki wrote:


2015-02-08 4:34 GMT+03:00 ianek <= span dir=3D"ltr"><= jan...@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 meanings

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.

No. It's because words in a= n English sentence can be parsed as different syntactic structures. That's = what parsing means: determining structures formed by words. Not "finding so= mething common".
 
 
Like this:

"Fred saw a plane flying over Zurich"
NAME VERB-PAST ARTICLE COU= NTABLE-NOUN VERB-ING PREPOSITION NAME

Some (much simplified) rules c= ould be:

Sentence ::=3D Noun-Phrase Verb Noun-Phrase
Sentence ::= =3D Noun-Phrase Verb Noun-Phrase Adverbial-Phrase
Noun-Phrase ::=3D NAME= | ARTICLE COUNTABLE-NOUN | Noun-Phrase VERB-ING Prepositional-Clause
Ve= rb ::=3D VERB-PAST
Adverbial-Phrase ::=3D VERB-ING Preposition-ClausePreposition-Clause ::=3D PREPOSITION Noun-Phrase

This simple gramma= r yields two parse trees for that sentence:

Sentence
----Noun-Phr= ase
--------NAME
------------Fred
----Verb
--------VERB-PAST------------saw
----Noun-Phrase
--------Noun-Phrase
------------A= RTICLE
----------------a
------------NOUN
----------------plane--------VERB-ING
------------flying
--------Prepositional-Clause
= ------------PROPOSITION
----------------over
------------Noun-Phrase<= br>----------------NAME
--------------------Zurich

Sentence
--= --Noun-Phrase
--------NAME
------------Fred
----Verb
--------VE= RB-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, althoug= h 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 unambi= guously. 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 i= t doesn't have anything to do with syntactic ambiguity.

It specifies to which head a clause should a= ttach. 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 i= s to provide several possible trees.

It's a feature of a language, not a parser. If English had a pro= noun, say, 'lar', which would mean 'the subject or the object of the main s= entence', you could say "Fred saw a plane as lar flew over Zurich", which w= ould be ambiguous semantically, but not syntactically.


 
{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.
<= /div>

If you applied {mo'e zo'e} to t= he English sentence you will still get the only syntax tree.

You can't "apply" {mo'e zo'e} to the Eng= lish sentence, because it's not there. Likewise you don't "apply" {mo'e zo'= e} to the Lojban sentence. You just parse it, because it's there.
In Eng= lish you can have phrases like 'X of Y of Z' which could be parsed as '(X o= f Y) of Z' or 'X of (Y of Z)'. In Lojban it's not possible, but you can say= ''either (X of Y) of Z or X of (Y of Z)", which is not syntactically ambig= uous. You can't apply "either... or" to the English sentence, because you c= an't parse words which aren't there.

<= br>

In E= nglish you can have sentences that are semantically ambiguous due to syntac= tic ambiguity. In Lojban you can have sentences with (roughly) the same sem= antic ambiguity as the English ones, but syntactically unambiguous.
&nbs= p;

> {la fred pu viska lo vinji do'e lo se xi vei mo'e zo'e nei poi vofli g= a'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 camxes = does for Lojban one?
I won't be surprised if such parser for Engl= ish doesn't exist since those who write them might mix parsing and interpre= tation 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 sever= al syntactic trees. If using one term for two operations is stopped the con= tradiction 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 inte= rpretation. 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, a= nd 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 tree= s.

XI clauses have an ambiguou= s syntax, so I don't see how I'd need workarounfds and several trees. Of co= urse, I could invent a Lojban parser that won't be able to parse anything, = but what's the point? {mo'e zo'e} from the parser's view is just MOhE KOhA.= If I can't parse it, then I have an incomplete parser.

What you mea= n sounds rather like a semantic analyzer, which is extremely hard for any l= anguage, including Lojban.

mu'o mi'e ianek
 
 
<= div>
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 e= mail to lojban+un...@= googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/l= ojban.
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.
------=_Part_881_1324007186.1423513367312-- ------=_Part_880_773106448.1423513367311--