Received: from mail-lb0-f190.google.com ([209.85.217.190]:35466) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YOnZC-0007Uf-Vn for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 05:24:34 -0800 Received: by lbiw7 with SMTP id w7sf1663502lbi.2 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 05:24:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help :list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=W6Yvy0XbTKTdyuCS9tjgl6UWWTLydSwusBEOhHXSCE8=; b=FZY0KCJ3WHkn8H6unGVjHVXFMypcp8cm6RgKU0EXQ8f42w0HueQUEiUra++cSHgaR1 4TMDZzGAu4x5aHuejiGtD7GiBwz/tInCl+7kcX14h19nEIXuEEU7WC22SwmQ9dbRcdIc Z+zdEknVf7iflOzLvyo/jhgwkl9WTxG58aAaoq9eNJsC80IM2WNSKJ1N7IlN4ZdxQeIu HYoVk/q+l9XOd+o9D9NI4umiKKAIh1eoGGx5DwiHLkv8s5TrW2cPqvmHC5mWYS76ybk+ xUG1MVk5fN9NQhF1XBwB/ieL8aA1HdR3wgsOCb5pXDmQCxKXsVOR0QirxNI/tjSSSX4B GYTA== X-Received: by 10.152.20.169 with SMTP id o9mr152497lae.6.1424438659956; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 05:24:19 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.152.43.98 with SMTP id v2ls249343lal.104.gmail; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 05:24:18 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.152.1.5 with SMTP id 5mr1277432lai.4.1424438657908; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 05:24:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wg0-x22d.google.com (mail-wg0-x22d.google.com. [2a00:1450:400c:c00::22d]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id cl5si102697wib.3.2015.02.20.05.24.17 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 20 Feb 2015 05:24:17 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c00::22d as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c00::22d; Received: by mail-wg0-f45.google.com with SMTP id k14so13172231wgh.4 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 05:24:17 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.180.103.102 with SMTP id fv6mr18955674wib.80.1424438656225; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 05:24:16 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.194.86.200 with HTTP; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 05:23:55 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <8b2f2e8a-a89f-4544-9ee7-d5189bd4a07b@googlegroups.com> References: <20150204124517.GA1243@kuebelreiter.informatik.Uni-Osnabrueck.DE> <50d5006f-f02b-4a28-9894-6608729585fc@googlegroups.com> <8b2f2e8a-a89f-4544-9ee7-d5189bd4a07b@googlegroups.com> From: Gleki Arxokuna Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 16:23:55 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] the myth of monoparsing To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0444eab31be00d050f84f884 X-Original-Sender: gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c00::22d as permitted sender) smtp.mail=gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=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: -1.7 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.7 X-Spam_score_int: -16 X-Spam_bar: - --f46d0444eab31be00d050f84f884 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 2015-02-13 0:04 GMT+03:00 ianek : > > > 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. >> 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's far from obvious. Natural languages have countless types of syntactic > ambiguity, and I'm not sure all of them could be overcome on the parser > level. > That's why I asked for examples. For those that by far been presented I used an alternative understanding. Of course, I respect hundreds of years grammarians put into studying English. But what I respect more is the English language itself that has thousands of years of development. > In Lojban the natural grammar yields a monoparsing parser (no artificial > zero words etc.). To make a polyparsing one, you'd have to do some weird > stretches. In English it's the other way around. > When one says "I like Lojban for monoparsing" that person doesn't love Lojban but loves the way it is presented. Language is one thing and its description is another one. At the moment I can't see polyparsing in English except in polysemy but that is said not to be relevant here. > > >> >> 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. > -- 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. --f46d0444eab31be00d050f84f884 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


2015-02-13 0:04 GMT+03:00 ianek <janek37@gmail.com>:
=


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

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


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


2015-02-12 1:20 GMT+= 03:00 ianek <jan...@gmail.com&= gt;:


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


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


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


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


On Friday, Febru= ary 6, 2015 at 8:13:30 AM UTC+1, la gleki wrote:


2015-02-04 15:45 GMT+0= 3:00 v4hn <m...@v4hn.de>:
On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 11:42:32AM +0300, G= leki Arxokuna wrote:
> "Fred saw a plane flying over Zurich" can have several meani= ngs

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 an English sentence can be parsed as different syntactic structur= es. 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.=C2=A0
<= div>
However, there is another option to monoparse this Engli= sh sentence.

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

=C2=A0
=C2=A0
Like this:

"Fred saw a plane flying over Z= urich"
NAME VERB-PAST ARTICLE COUNTABLE-NOUN VERB-ING PREPOS= ITION NAME

Some (much simplified) rules could be:

Sentence ::= =3D Noun-Phrase Verb Noun-Phrase
Sentence ::=3D Noun-Phrase Verb Noun-Ph= rase Adverbial-Phrase
Noun-Phrase ::=3D NAME | ARTICLE COUNTABLE-NOUN | = Noun-Phrase VERB-ING Prepositional-Clause
Verb ::=3D VERB-PAST
Adverb= ial-Phrase ::=3D VERB-ING Preposition-Clause
Preposition-Clause ::=3D PR= EPOSITION 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<= br>------------NOUN
----------------plane
--------VERB-ING
-------= -----flying
--------Prepositional-Clause
------------PROPOSITION
-= ---------------over
------------Noun-Phrase
----------------NAME
-= -------------------Zurich

Sentence
----Noun-Phrase
--------NAM= E
------------Fred
----Verb
--------VERB-PAST
------------saw----Noun-Phrase
--------Noun-Phrase
------------ARTICLE
--------= --------a
------------NOUN
----------------plane
----Adverbial-Phr= ase
--------VERB-ING
------------flying
--------Prepositional-Clau= se
------------PROPOSITION
----------------over
------------Noun-P= hrase
----------------NAME
--------------------Zurich

Formal g= rammars for natural languages do exist, although they're not perfect, b= ut 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 careful= ly designed to avoid this problem. And it doesn't have anything to do w= ith {xi PA}. The Lojban grammar specifies XI clauses unambiguously. Parse t= rees are unique. Monoparsing is not a myth. XI clauses may add semantic amb= iguity 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. A= nd since it's {mo'e zo'e} it's vague to which head it attac= hes. If the parser you use doesn't allow for that the only thing that c= an 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 "F= red saw a plane as lar flew over Zurich", which would be ambiguous sem= antically, but not syntactically.

Even in current English theory there are a lot of zero morphemes. Wh= at I'm proposing is just another zero morpheme.
=
=C2=A0

This is what And agreed with me.


<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-l= eft-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;pa= dding-left:1ex">

=C2=A0
{la fred = pu viska lo vinji do'e lo se xi vei mo'e zo'e nei poi vofli ga&= #39;u la tsurix} has only one syntax tree, regardless of the number of poss= ible semantic interpretations.

<= /div>
If you applied {mo'e zo'e} to the English sentence you wi= ll 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 ''eit= her (X of Y) of Z or X of (Y of Z)", which is not syntactically ambigu= ous. 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 &quo= t;add words that aren't there" =C2=A0all the time.

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

Probably most. Sin= ce this concept (of adding words and morphemes of zero length) is present i= n most modern theories:

This doesn't answer my question. Nam= e at least one working English parser. I haven't found any.

Which requirements do you need? Take S= tanford's parser.
But if you want an English parser that woul= d insert zero morpheme to reach vague syntax I'm not aware of any altho= ugh it's obvious (I hope so) that it's possible to create one (alth= ough probably useless since no one including me suggested any possible adva= ntages apart from purely theoretical ones).

It's far from obvious. Natural languages have= countless types of syntactic ambiguity, and I'm not sure all of them c= ould be overcome on the parser level.

=
That's why I asked for examples. For those that by far been = presented I used an alternative understanding.

Of = course, I respect hundreds of years grammarians put into studying English.<= /div>

But what I respect more is the English language it= self that has thousands of years of development.

= =C2=A0
In Lojban = the natural grammar yields a monoparsing parser (no artificial zero words e= tc.). To make a polyparsing one, you'd have to do some weird stretches.= In English it's the other way around.

When one says "I like Lojban for monoparsing" tha= t person doesn't love Lojban but loves the way it is presented.

Language is one thing and its description is another one.=

At the moment I can't see polyparsing in Engl= ish except in polysemy but that is said not to be relevant here.
= =C2=A0
=C2=A0

It of course r= esults in the inability of a fair comparison of Lojban and English parsers.= But that's acceptable.
=C2=A0
=C2=A0




In= English you can have sentences that are semantically ambiguous due to synt= actic ambiguity. In Lojban you can have sentences with (roughly) the same s= emantic ambiguity as the English ones, but syntactically unambiguous.
= =C2=A0

> {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.
<= br>
And for English you don't provide any parses at all.
May be someone should just parse the original English sentence as cam= xes 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 Englis= h sentence has several syntactic trees. If using one term for two operation= s is stopped the contradiction disappears.

=C2=A0<= /div>
If you think it should produce more then one, raise a bug report.

I'm not aware of any Lojban parsers that per= form interpretation operation. In most cases you just need context and one = interpretation. But this is semantic analysis. Producing all possible synta= ctic trees is a task needed more seldom.

Camxes is intended to produce all possible syntactic tree= s, and there's only one of them for any valid sentence.
=

You may invent a Lojban parser that won= 9;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 wo= rkarounfds and several trees. Of course, I could invent a Lojban parser tha= t 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 pars= e 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 monopars= ed.
=C2=A0

What y= ou mean sounds rather like a semantic analyzer, which is extremely hard for= any language, including Lojban.

mu'o mi'e ianek
= =C2=A0
=C2=A0
mu'o mi'e ianek

--
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+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroup= s.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 &= quot;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/group/lojban.
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+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroup= s.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 &= quot;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/group/lojba= n.
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+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.

--
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.
--f46d0444eab31be00d050f84f884--