Received: from mail-ee0-f61.google.com ([74.125.83.61]:39667) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YOneE-0007lD-I7 for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 05:29:43 -0800 Received: by eekd49 with SMTP id d49sf1168565eek.6 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 05:29:31 -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=RdIEtKGL5YX4B5EsF8MFndwRMasyMk7AU8g5yTSMQZI=; b=GKp2/CPFCmj7h3ibbQ1iKs4PX5NG7x1kgRop6kz4X1E1B51JfW2XLzEAqASxET62ek ICraxxOb6PkaIMDnyIBtLsKOyUByj+VJ/DlyDxe1sRffS4Zuj80GJAP8P59pA9Y3xJDs 6WmfwAkpESwLbQhPesymeOEb+raTLHzmmf8Be4DwS1PSnh0qHvUiSrTGFvpYHXgNuacF E6RHVngTiXNvG7Vot57Ytg4H8B2gIasg7qoJvQMPaqh5yZ9GxuTGZZunwwdPCRUVxlZD rL3bdKWSjzavV6ExXEZbEUhvdGAPUmjP5w1Li3EFegE6JxWXNZNYEmp11JimRBH977so qBhw== X-Received: by 10.152.21.6 with SMTP id r6mr105755lae.41.1424438971913; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 05:29:31 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.152.228.136 with SMTP id si8ls285644lac.11.gmail; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 05:29:31 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.112.130.70 with SMTP id oc6mr1299330lbb.13.1424438971396; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 05:29:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wi0-x231.google.com (mail-wi0-x231.google.com. [2a00:1450:400c:c05::231]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id r6si113619wix.0.2015.02.20.05.29.31 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 20 Feb 2015 05:29:31 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::231 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c05::231; Received: by mail-wi0-x231.google.com with SMTP id bs8so2917882wib.4 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 05:29:31 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.194.158.234 with SMTP id wx10mr19267987wjb.23.1424438971257; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 05:29:31 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.194.86.200 with HTTP; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 05:29:11 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <54E24F81.8010701@gmail.com> References: <20150204124517.GA1243@kuebelreiter.informatik.Uni-Osnabrueck.DE> <54E24F81.8010701@gmail.com> From: Gleki Arxokuna Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 16:29:11 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] the myth of monoparsing To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013c625ce2f6b8050f850ae5 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:c05::231 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: - --089e013c625ce2f6b8050f850ae5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 2015-02-16 23:13 GMT+03:00 And Rosta : > 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 > morphemes, then yes, I do agree, or at least I agree that there are > syntactic nodes that don't correspond to any phonological node, and that > multiple syntactic nodes can correspond to the same phonological node, so > that the morphophonological structure of the sentence is only loosely > homoeomorphic with the syntactic structure. > > What I also agree with you on is that in both the English and Lojban > examples 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 we have a set of ambiguous sentences, each sentence > with the same phonology and different logicosyntactic form That's how modern grammarians perceive it, not necessarily how it is indeed works internally. I just showed that forcing operator "=" (in PEG notation) is against "Gricean's" fifth law (actually the principle of least effort) and instead a vague operator could be used instead. ; in the Lojban case we have a single unambiguous sentence, with a single > phonology and a single logicosyntactic form, which is an underspecified > generalization over a set of logical explicatures. > > 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 espouse > the attractive idea that the grammar is a parser (e.g. Dynamic Syntax), but > it's a minoritarian view. One language can have several grammars. I think you understand that views of grammarians change over time and the same construct was analysed in a different way in different epochs. I'm not even talking about changing terminology which again shows the instability of the theory. Which is fine of course but should lead us to absolutizing them as core features of languages (in fact such absolutizing can lead us to some whorfism). > > > --And. > > > -- > 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. --089e013c625ce2f6b8050f850ae5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


2015-02-16 23:13 GMT+03:00 And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>:
Gleki Arxokuna, On 11/02/2015 12:50= :
Even in current English theory there are a lot of zero morphemes. What I= 9;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 o= f zero morphemes, then yes, I do agree, or at least I agree that there are = syntactic nodes that don't correspond to any phonological node, and tha= t multiple syntactic nodes can correspond to the same phonological node, so= that the morphophonological structure of the sentence is only loosely homo= eomorphic with 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 ca= se we have a set of ambiguous sentences, each sentence with the same phonol= ogy and different logicosyntactic form

That= 's how modern grammarians perceive it, not necessarily how it is indeed= works internally.

I just showed that forcing oper= ator "=3D" (in PEG notation) is against "Gricean's"= fifth law (actually the principle of least effort) and instead a vague ope= rator could be used instead.


; in the Lojban case we have a single unambiguous sente= nce, with a single phonology and a single logicosyntactic form, which is an= underspecified generalization over a set of logical explicatures.

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 tha= t espouse the attractive idea that the grammar is a parser (e.g. Dynamic Sy= ntax), but it's a minoritarian view.

On= e language can have several grammars. I think you understand that views of = grammarians change over time and the same construct was analysed in a diffe= rent way in different epochs. I'm not even talking about changing termi= nology which again shows the instability of the theory. Which is fine of co= urse but should lead us to absolutizing them as core features of languages = (in fact such absolutizing can lead us to some whorfism).


--And.


--
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.
--089e013c625ce2f6b8050f850ae5--