Received: from mail-qa0-f60.google.com ([209.85.216.60]:63534) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YMPk7-0004gb-Fu for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 15:34:01 -0800 Received: by mail-qa0-f60.google.com with SMTP id j7sf4981835qaq.5 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 15:33:45 -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=ht8dQ2A2+QqeV7WfGU/oNEZeZhmQPfwsRKhia7fPNUU=; b=D0me9zJKr3a9Cry1vF0hZrulkMrh8ODSzt9KczmnFLPIGPb5i4UOT6hBi1zOccLoiU dqmu6sMcGxzce326Z7b1JZDtHPESzNCrZB3O4LDnqs/titDIS91XQr0pIBBuAqvXD+Bv DNeETVWoXxwOr+aJu6ug89ITgQBNoV7ZqSOz+riwYc+uV4DDDfLNmswz1EzHhAZZBvFk 6t7yNTElPnOgBgplfQ8Eulyzf8sJMsqMlmc54ogYHDvN0ENj72JiOdIvRg6nu012Fmwu 6MIdBbLI2jFgaRaIvNo2aHny6PcrCvuxA4WQf+qBHR98zAcvxDoNrE78zCOHQIseW19T /k4A== 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=ht8dQ2A2+QqeV7WfGU/oNEZeZhmQPfwsRKhia7fPNUU=; b=xIYTfDfWldQb1OEmwGJ8BbgVA9EL3lb5Gyxs+/IunG+tTPGAFUwzL/Dp63LYY8Qxay eHuEa7QWvznL2aP2+HLCLbYAdEeXmFEPvE2gVjRQd552x6sb9Dm898tZ3oxOtgG5jxU4 nmE8YkamFceaqgUIFU2NNllZi9TQmUNniiibMkyMB/IsRyoLOpjprxkbWMNxF4Wg9GRX Xgb4H9+2T8akGThDSBAOv7LxxCxyfq86Rw8skwaqOPi+o1zegmKT3bqXlpgdgIF9Zodw qGjSsKIQXFQta8tnH6aTfcUq8PC0kHXHdk/pvo7jHYxa3qddm5P2l62B2Ky2RyJeMN9y U1jA== X-Received: by 10.140.94.74 with SMTP id f68mr156562qge.13.1423870425455; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 15:33:45 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.140.106.71 with SMTP id d65ls1495921qgf.17.gmail; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 15:33:44 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.140.109.66 with SMTP id k60mr165204qgf.36.1423870424926; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 15:33:44 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 15:33:44 -0800 (PST) From: ianek To: lojban@googlegroups.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <20150204124517.GA1243@kuebelreiter.informatik.Uni-Osnabrueck.DE> <50d5006f-f02b-4a28-9894-6608729585fc@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: [lojban] the myth of monoparsing MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_26_99058173.1423870424503" 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: -2.0 (--) X-Spam_score: -2.0 X-Spam_score_int: -19 X-Spam_bar: -- ------=_Part_26_99058173.1423870424503 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_27_570887186.1423870424503" ------=_Part_27_570887186.1423870424503 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Thursday, February 12, 2015 at 8:00:17 PM UTC+1, la gleki wrote: > > > 2015-02-12 21:42 GMT+03:00 ianek >: > >> >> >> On Thursday, February 12, 2015 at 7:11:12 AM UTC+1, la gleki wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> 2015-02-12 1:20 GMT+03:00 ianek : >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 1:50:49 PM UTC+1, la gleki wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2015-02-09 23:22 GMT+03:00 ianek : >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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". >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You yourself just showed several parses of the same sentence. >>>>> This is how usual English parsers are constructed. >>>>> >>>>> However, there is another option to monoparse this English sentence. >>>>> >>>>> You mix English language and one current theory of how to parse it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Even in current English theory there are a lot of zero morphemes. What >>>>> I'm proposing is just another zero morpheme. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> This is what And agreed with me. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> {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. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> As I just said English parsers use this "add words that aren't there" >>>>> all the time. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I was searching, but I haven't found any English parser (but I know a >>>> Polish one). What parsers do you refer to? >>>> >>> >>> Probably most. Since this concept (of adding words and morphemes of zero >>> length) is present in most modern theories: >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_(linguistics) >>> >> >> This doesn't answer my question. Name at least one working English >> parser. I haven't found any. >> > > Which requirements do you need? Take Stanford's parser. > I've tested the Stanford's parser with examples from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_(linguistics) and no zero words there. Which is not surprising, because adding posibility of zero words would make it impossible to tokenize, and most parsers first tokenize input, and the they parse the resulting string of tokens. Zero words would extremely complicate everything. > But if you want an English parser that would insert zero morpheme to reach > vague syntax I'm not aware of any although it's obvious (I hope so) that > it's possible to create one (although probably useless since no one > including me suggested any possible advantages apart from purely > theoretical ones). > > It of course results in the inability of a fair comparison of Lojban and > English parsers. But that's acceptable. > >> >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> And this is what I state for English: its current parsers are >>>>> incomplete and further improvements will make polyparsed sentences >>>>> monoparsed. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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+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+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+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_27_570887186.1423870424503 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Thursday, February 12, 2015 at 8:00:17 PM UTC+1= , la gleki wrote:

2015-02-12 21:42 GMT+03:00 ianek <j= an...@gmail.com>:


On Thursday, February 12, 2015 at 7:11:12 AM UTC+1, la gle= ki wrote:


2015-02-12 1:20 GMT+03:00 ianek <jan...@gmail.com>:


On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 = at 1:50:49 PM UTC+1, la gleki wrote:


2015-02-09 23:22 GMT+03:00 ian= ek <jan...@gmail.com>:


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


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


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

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 wor= ds in an English sentence can be parsed as different syntactic structures. = That's what parsing means: determining structures formed by words. Not "fin= ding something common".

You= yourself just showed several parses of the same sentence.
This i= s how usual English parsers are constructed. 

However, there is another option to monoparse this English sentence.
=

You mix English language and one current theory of how = to parse it.

&nb= sp;
 
Like thi= s:

"Fred saw a plane flying over Zurich"
NAME V= ERB-PAST ARTICLE COUNTABLE-NOUN VERB-ING PREPOSITION NAME

Some (much= simplified) rules could be:

Sentence ::=3D Noun-Phrase Verb Noun-Ph= rase
Sentence ::=3D Noun-Phrase Verb Noun-Phrase Adverbial-Phrase
Nou= n-Phrase ::=3D NAME | ARTICLE COUNTABLE-NOUN | Noun-Phrase VERB-ING Preposi= tional-Clause
Verb ::=3D VERB-PAST
Adverbial-Phrase ::=3D VERB-ING Pr= eposition-Clause
Preposition-Clause ::=3D PREPOSITION Noun-Phrase
This simple grammar yields two parse trees for that sentence:

Sente= nce
----Noun-Phrase
--------NAME
------------Fred
----Verb
-= -------VERB-PAST
------------saw
----Noun-Phrase
--------Noun-Phra= se
------------ARTICLE
----------------a
------------NOUN
-----= -----------plane
--------VERB-ING
------------flying
--------Prepo= sitional-Clause
------------PROPOSITION
----------------over
-----= -------Noun-Phrase
----------------NAME
--------------------Zurich
Sentence
----Noun-Phrase
--------NAME
------------Fred
---= -Verb
--------VERB-PAST
------------saw
----Noun-Phrase
-------= -Noun-Phrase
------------ARTICLE
----------------a
------------NOU= N
----------------plane
----Adverbial-Phrase
--------VERB-ING
-= -----------flying
--------Prepositional-Clause
------------PROPOSITIO= N
----------------over
------------Noun-Phrase
----------------NAM= E
--------------------Zurich

Formal grammars for natural language= s do exist, although they're not perfect, but the problem with multiple gra= mmatically sensible parses (often millions of trees and more) is much great= er than the problem with nonsensible trees or correct sentences that don't = parse at all.

Lojban was carefully designed to avoid this problem. A= nd it doesn't have anything to do with {xi PA}. The Lojban grammar specifie= s XI clauses unambiguously. Parse trees are unique. Monoparsing is not a my= th. XI clauses may add semantic ambiguity on a different level then, say, s= imple {zo'e}, but it doesn't have anything to do with syntactic ambiguity.<= /div>

It specifies to which hea= d a clause should attach. And since it's {mo'e zo'e} it's vague to which he= ad 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 subj= ect 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 synt= actically.

Even in current = English theory there are a lot of zero morphemes. What I'm proposing is jus= t another zero morpheme.
 
<= br>
This is what And agreed with me.



 
{la fred pu viska lo vinji do'e lo s= e 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.
<= /div>

You can't "apply" {mo'e zo'e} to th= e 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.
I= n 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 ca= n 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.
=
As I just said English parsers use this "add words that aren= 't there"  all the time.

I was searching, but I haven't found any English parser (but I = know a Polish one). What parsers do you refer to?

Probably most. Since this concept (of adding words a= nd morphemes of zero length) is present in most modern theories:
<= /div>

This doesn't answer my question. Name at least one working En= glish parser. I haven't found any.

Which requirements do you need? Take Stanford's parser.
=

I've tested the Stanford's parser with ex= amples from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_(linguistics) and no zero wo= rds there. Which is not surprising, because adding posibility of zero words= would make it impossible to tokenize, and most parsers first tokenize inpu= t, and the they parse the resulting string of tokens. Zero words would extr= emely complicate everything.
 
But if = you want an English parser that would insert zero morpheme to reach vague s= yntax I'm not aware of any although it's obvious (I hope so) that it's poss= ible to create one (although probably useless since no one including me sug= gested any possible advantages apart from purely theoretical ones).

It of course results in the inability of a fair compariso= n of Lojban and English parsers. But that's acceptable.
 
=
 




In English you can have sentences that are semant= ically ambiguous due to syntactic ambiguity. In Lojban you can have sentenc= es with (roughly) the same semantic ambiguity as the English ones, but synt= actically unambiguous.
 

> {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 a= mbiguous 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 any= thing, but what's the point? {mo'e zo'e} from the parser's view is just MOh= E KOhA. If I can't parse it, then I have an incomplete parser.

And this is what I state for English: i= ts current parsers are incomplete and further improvements will make polypa= rsed sentences monoparsed.
 

What you mean sounds rather like a semantic analyzer, whi= ch 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 e= mail to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroup= s.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/gro= up/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/op<= /u>tout.

--
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...@googlegroup= s.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/gro= up/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/op<= /u>tout.

--
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...@googlegroup= s.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/gro= up/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 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_27_570887186.1423870424503-- ------=_Part_26_99058173.1423870424503--