Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::22e as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c05::22e;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <54DCD3CF.1050300@gmail.com>
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>
From: Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 21:01:12 +0300
Message-ID: <CAO7bV+g_B2sHTHhPLf+UufTfdq5na-OXeeXcuhsF2iBbVd95Qw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] the myth of monoparsing
To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" <lojban@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bacba62fde299050ee7e8d6
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:  2015-02-12 19:24 GMT+03:00 Ilmen <ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com>:
    > As for the "Fred saw a plane flying over Zurich" sentence, it's certainly
    > possible to have a monoparse if we allow more than two branches per node,
    > like the below: > [...] 
 
 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)
                             [209.85.215.55 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

--047d7bacba62fde299050ee7e8d6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

2015-02-12 19:24 GMT+03:00 Ilmen <ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com>:

> As for the "Fred saw a plane flying over Zurich" sentence, it's certainly
> possible to have a monoparse if we allow more than two branches per node,
> like the below:
>

Please, note that by "vague syntax" above I mean that the principle of
least effort applies not only to tenses, number but even to syntactic tree.
Namely, language might omit declaring to which head a branch is attached.

When English parsers force an assumption that a branch must be attached to
a strictly specified head they break this principle.

E.g. when in {mi citka lo plise} you derive tense from context similarly
when using vague clauses you derive the head it is attached to from context.


I just want to separate what I said about vague syntax from what you just
suggested for multibranching.

-- 
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.

--047d7bacba62fde299050ee7e8d6
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">=
2015-02-12 19:24 GMT+03:00 Ilmen <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:il=
men.pokebip@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com</a>&gt;</s=
pan>:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;borde=
r-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div text=3D"#000000" bgcolor=3D"#F=
FFFFF">As for the &quot;Fred saw a plane flying over Zurich&quot; sentence,=
 it&#39;s
    certainly possible to have a monoparse if we allow more than two
    branches per node, like the below:<br></div></blockquote></div><br>Plea=
se, note that by &quot;vague syntax&quot; above I mean that the principle o=
f least effort applies not only to tenses, number but even to syntactic tre=
e.</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">Namely, language might omit declaring to=
 which head a branch is attached.</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div=
><div class=3D"gmail_extra">When English parsers force an assumption that a=
 branch must be attached to a strictly specified head they break this princ=
iple.</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">=
E.g. when in {mi citka lo plise} you derive tense from context similarly wh=
en using vague clauses you derive the head it is attached to from context.<=
/div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></=
div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">I just want to separate what I said about va=
gue syntax from what you just suggested for multibranching.</div></div>

<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 e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">lojban+unsub=
scribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.=
com">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http:=
//groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/optout">http=
s://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br />

--047d7bacba62fde299050ee7e8d6--