Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c00::231 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c00::231;
Message-ID: <54E24F81.8010701@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 20:13:53 +0000
From: And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120711 Thunderbird/14.0
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>
In-Reply-To: <CAO7bV+geB+=fq33PeF0duOhwFs-D93gYnyxTZo_SFK9rif-m=g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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: -1.7
X-Spam_score_int: -16
X-Spam_bar: -

Gleki Arxokuna, On 11/02/2015 12:50:
> 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.

I'm not sure what I agreed with you. If it's that there are a lot of zero m=
orphemes, then yes, I do agree, or at least I agree that there are syntacti=
c nodes that don't correspond to any phonological node, and that multiple s=
yntactic nodes can correspond to the same phonological node, so that the mo=
rphophonological structure of the sentence is only loosely homoeomorphic wi=
th the syntactic structure.

What I also agree with you on is that in both the English and Lojban exampl=
es we have a situation where one phonological form leads determinately to a=
 set of multiple logical explicatures. But I disagree with your contention =
that the situations' internal workings are analogous. In the English case w=
e have a set of ambiguous sentences, each sentence with the same phonology =
and different logicosyntactic form; in the Lojban case we have a single una=
mbiguous sentence, with a single phonology and a single logicosyntactic for=
m, which is an underspecified generalization over a set of logical explicat=
ures.

I don't understand why you keep on about an English parser. Parsers are of =
practical utility and of psycholinguistic significance, but what's relevant=
 to the discussion is grammars, not parsers. There are theories that espous=
e the attractive idea that the grammar is a parser (e.g. Dynamic Syntax), b=
ut it's a minoritarian view.

--And.

--=20
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+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.