Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::230 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c05::230;
Message-ID: <54DCD516.3090000@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 17:30:14 +0100
From: Ilmen <ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] the myth of monoparsing
References: <CAO7bV+hZTwiquY0GcTA0xVjg2t+QnRt_DcY+XafDJYfa10L7ow@mail.gmail.com> <20150204124517.GA1243@kuebelreiter.informatik.Uni-Osnabrueck.DE> <CAO7bV+jCrZy4cO62r=jJXbdM67W9RZw=k5HBvML2ZgferZiJcQ@mail.gmail.com> <e157ff58-8ad1-4ca0-afc9-18cf7d2f352e@googlegroups.com> <CAO7bV+gV_p8w-de=N1DcfSt8CzkmSZ=bHp6H1AV3Fqm8wYTh0A@mail.gmail.com> <c04eb516-981e-4338-9728-a7e852523b4a@googlegroups.com> <CAO7bV+geB+=fq33PeF0duOhwFs-D93gYnyxTZo_SFK9rif-m=g@mail.gmail.com> <20150212123856.GA831@kuebelreiter.informatik.Uni-Osnabrueck.DE> <CAO7bV+j5dQogpWO9PZ-XkpNmAhWjX+gWhL0Juk0cQWJHZvQvcA@mail.gmail.com> <20150212150021.GB4686@kuebelreiter.informatik.Uni-Osnabrueck.DE> <CAO7bV+isGTfyufUbiZ8kRYQxSoNZivEeGtNn0b7ZEPJSB9nuBQ@mail.gmail.com> <54DCD3CF.1050300@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <54DCD3CF.1050300@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------080103020501000102010404"
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:  Correction: On 12/02/2015 17:24, Ilmen wrote: > But I guess
    that a true (and useful) parse analysis should not allow > more than two
   branches per node, so that for each word we know what > other word it attaches
    to. As the -ing verb-form can either represent > an adjectival present-participle
    (which attaches to a noun on its > left) or an *adverbial* present-participle
    (which attaches to the > verb, I think), it's not possible to produce a single
    **binary** parse > tree. > (Sorry, I've written "adjectival" twice whereas
    I meant "adverbial" at the second occurrence of "adjectival".) [...] 
 
 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 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
                             (ilmen.pokebip[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

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------080103020501000102010404
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed

Correction:

On 12/02/2015 17:24, Ilmen wrote:
> But I guess that a true (and useful) parse analysis should not allow 
> more than two branches per node, so that for each word we know what 
> other word it attaches to. As the -ing verb-form can either represent 
> an adjectival present-participle (which attaches to a noun on its 
> left) or an *adverbial* present-participle (which attaches to the 
> verb, I think), it's not possible to produce a single **binary** parse 
> tree.
>
(Sorry, I've written "adjectival" twice whereas I meant "adverbial" at 
the second occurrence of "adjectival".)

.u'u
mi'e la .ilmen. mu'o


-- 
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.

--------------080103020501000102010404
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8

<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
    Correction:<br>
    <br>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/02/2015 17:24, Ilmen wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote cite="mid:54DCD3CF.1050300@gmail.com" type="cite">
      <meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
      But I guess that a true (and useful) parse analysis should not
      allow more than two branches per node, so that for each word we
      know what other word it attaches to. As the -ing verb-form can
      either represent an adjectival present-participle (which attaches
      to a noun on its left) or an <font color="#990000"><b>adverbial</b></font>
      present-participle (which attaches to the verb, I think), it's not
      possible to produce a single <b>*binary*</b> parse tree.<br>
      <br>
    </blockquote>
    (Sorry, I've written "adjectival" twice whereas I meant "adverbial"
    at the second occurrence of "adjectival".)<br>
    <br>
    .u'u<br>
    mi'e la .ilmen. mu'o<br>
    <br>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>

<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 email to <a href="mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href="mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
Visit this group at <a href="http://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http://groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href="https://groups.google.com/d/optout">https://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br />

--------------080103020501000102010404--