Received: from mail-vc0-f190.google.com ([209.85.220.190]:47795) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YQ1Lq-0004e8-4p for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 14:19:44 -0800 Received: by mail-vc0-f190.google.com with SMTP id kv19sf6723724vcb.7 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 14:19:36 -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=4debaCiFDTKr/hbWMiDJdsG+zpEJ/XKuSkPrcALO3qk=; b=CccFNKFQEE9y6Gg2PUDiFUr78OAiyNdf06RpXJBEUUfL6d4tcGYRvAawJeG+0VF7eO 9MfJFlkY26acXVob4PMxvoZiXGkJWE0eO6rsaEch73fy9OR0YZXXVQaajl9yhNYFSb9e RK/kz3/Hts8xP3Z+3Ep9KDzfoQiyLJ9GgV6qzNv6DmhOLnMfaJh7A5ykzc3DThzwmiJA 38GX3X13Q1pRk1TFhjHi3nRJWqBgmBGcXtJSMjQEU9TwFtpRdrpJJ0FURdby6+6AfEcI ZrC5ZweeVLnU7HhU6jJu1+2aDK9eWyLN7zX4fZMnMGNF9LlJIqSEVxBlb3KElJwLN+yy 5iEw== 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=4debaCiFDTKr/hbWMiDJdsG+zpEJ/XKuSkPrcALO3qk=; b=zvdCJzPKcNoKgMyzsP9OEH68AaELU31BOt1KTFQIWsDSuJsqugjc3p3Pld/jdRnlGC z8JQz//E7OjIYwK7pUr2tjEOFqa+TTPRa2wfSJ31hxaZvEFxoMSTI47BDMn3YMyGXGpL iOCLQyz4Qq9v4pfwVLacot7mPHzpk22HtwVvRRqdttybfZhVhp3VvfaOklcESCCwfxDX kc05bWqm01IhTLnlQyI+Wip6+lDUna2xim2FE2X5zewoCnbO5AEcEqqz1mONNQlQbMSI 2EZDMuSJG3/s+d25l68Ky5NOpE9shQibNOxnZSg/i1qxXyuECGrNySyXtffiNHwDMUPN Lh/w== X-Received: by 10.140.82.212 with SMTP id h78mr144698qgd.22.1424729976040; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 14:19:36 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.140.105.164 with SMTP id c33ls2494510qgf.66.gmail; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 14:19:35 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.140.42.104 with SMTP id b95mr140037qga.23.1424729975734; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 14:19:35 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 14:19:35 -0800 (PST) From: ianek To: lojban@googlegroups.com Message-Id: <7c35771e-8c3d-457a-9586-ffecfc45cb32@googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20150204124517.GA1243@kuebelreiter.informatik.Uni-Osnabrueck.DE> <50d5006f-f02b-4a28-9894-6608729585fc@googlegroups.com> <8b2f2e8a-a89f-4544-9ee7-d5189bd4a07b@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: [lojban] the myth of monoparsing MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_1040_1987173574.1424729975389" 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: -1.8 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.8 X-Spam_score_int: -17 X-Spam_bar: - ------=_Part_1040_1987173574.1424729975389 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_1041_760580074.1424729975389" ------=_Part_1041_760580074.1424729975389 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 12:56:05 PM UTC+1, la gleki wrote: > > > > 2015-02-21 2:32 GMT+03:00 ianek >: > >> >> >> On Friday, February 20, 2015 at 2:24:22 PM UTC+1, la gleki wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> 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. >>> >> >> But what if there could be infinitely many examples? It's possible, as >> there's no upper limit to the length of a sentence. You can't have infinite >> grammar (technically you could, but it's pointless). >> > > Yes, technically it's unfalsifialbe since you can't be sure that example > No. 1256 won't fail to prove or disprove monoparsing in English. > > However, note that > 1. I don't consider syntactic ambiguity and vague syntax (vague '=' > operator) as methods complementing each other. In fact they are rival > methods. I consider both of them fine. But this is what can make the claim > that Lojban is the only monoparsing language false. It of course means that > parsers of Lojban are monoparsing. > 2. The grammar of English although is large probably not infinite. > >> >> >>> >>> 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. >>> >> >> Monoparsing is natural in Lojban. You'd have to be really stubborn to >> polyparse Lojban. >> > > No, it won't be stubborn and monoparsing isn't natural to Lojban. > It's natural to textbooks, learning resources and parsers of this language. > > Presenting a language as monoparsing creates an illusion that this > language is inherently different from others. > > However, this is not the time to fight Chomsky's ideas. > > OTOH, polyparsing is much more natural for English than monoparsing (it >> it's even possible, as you claim). >> > > No, again it's only how grammarians describe this language. > > >> When you say in Lojban {xi mo'e zo'e}, you conciously express ambiguity, >> using unambiguous syntax. When you say an English sentence with >1000 >> natural parses, you're not concious of them and you're usually not willing >> to express ambiguity. >> All of that is really obvious. >> > > So you reduce all your reasoning to zero morphemes? This is the same > argument pycyn put earlier. Different languages have different sets of > zeros. > > However, as shown earlier by Ilmen even without {xi vei mo'e zo'e} a > simple {broda i brode} creates a wide range of meanings. Note that {zo'e} > here are implicit. > > It's also highly doubtful what is said consciously and what is not. Are > zeros the only parts of the language expressed unconsciously according to > you? > No. Zeros in language are not expressed unconciously. They're conciously unexpressed. They're omitted because they're obvious from context or irrelevant. When I say "I saw a girl with a telescope", it's not obvious that I really mean "I saw a girl and either I used telescope to see her or she had a telescope with her". In fact I probably don't. The result of parsing should show what was meant and not what are all of the possible and probably not intended syntactic constructions in the sentence. On the other hand, when I say in Polish "Jem" (I eat) and not "Ja jem" (I eat), I'm very concious that "Ja" (I) is the subject, this follows from the form of the verb (first person). It's not like I unconciously express that I'm talking about me and I'd be surprised when I find out (which is often true with syntactic ambiguity). The same goes for the examples in the Wikipedia article. You could argue that in "X of Y of Z" there are zero parenthesis-like tokens: "( X of Y ) of Z" or "X of (Y of Z)". But it doesn't help with parsing, it > >> >>> 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. >>> >> >> I guess that your votum is separatum. >> > > I don't care how many people for and against here. > E.g And Rosta seems to have a different understanding what grammar is and > how it is connected to parsing although Parsing Expression Grammar hints at > what it is for. > > >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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+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_1041_760580074.1424729975389 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 12:56:05 PM UTC+1,= la gleki wrote:


2015-02-21 2:32 GMT+03:00 ianek = <jan...@gmail.com>:


On Friday, February 20, 2015 at 2:24:22 PM UTC+1, la glek= i wrote:
=

2015-02-13 0:04 GMT+03:00 ianek <jan...@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 gl= eki wrote:


2015-02-12 1:20 GMT+03:00 ianek <= span dir=3D"ltr"><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 ia= nek <jan...@gmail.com>:


On Monday, February 9, 201= 5 at 11:54:41 AM UTC+1, la gleki wrote:


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


On Friday, February 6, 2015 a= t 8:13:30 AM UTC+1, la gleki wrote:
=

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:

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 parse= r.
But if you want an English parser that would insert zero morph= eme to reach vague syntax I'm not aware of any although it's obvious (I hop= e so) that it's possible to create one (although probably useless since no = one including me suggested any possible advantages apart from purely theore= tical ones).

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

That's why I asked for examp= les. For those that by far been presented I used an alternative understandi= ng.

But what if th= ere could be infinitely many examples? It's possible, as there's no upper l= imit to the length of a sentence. You can't have infinite grammar (technica= lly you could, but it's pointless).

Yes, technically it's unfalsifialbe since you can't be sure that e= xample No. 1256 won't fail to prove or disprove monoparsing in English.

However, note that
1. I don't consider synt= actic ambiguity and vague syntax (vague '=3D' operator) as methods compleme= nting each other. In fact they are rival methods. I consider both of them f= ine. But this is what can make the claim that Lojban is the only monoparsin= g language false. It of course means that parsers of Lojban are monoparsing= .
2. The grammar of English although is large probably not infini= te.
 
<= span>

Of course, I respect hundreds of yea= rs 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 monop= arsing parser (no artificial zero words etc.). To make a polyparsing one, y= ou'd have to do some weird stretches. In English it's the other way around.=

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

Monoparsing= is natural in Lojban. You'd have to be really stubborn to polyparse Lojban= .

No, it won't be stubborn and = monoparsing isn't natural to Lojban.
It's natural to textbooks, l= earning resources and parsers of this language.

Presenting a language as mo= noparsing creates an illusion that this language is inherently different fr= om others.

However, this is not the time to fight = Chomsky's ideas.

OTOH, polyparsing is much more natural for English than mon= oparsing (it it's even possible, as you claim).

No, again it's only how grammarians describe this language= .
 
When you say in Lojban {xi mo'e zo'e}, you conciously express ambiguity,= using unambiguous syntax. When you say an English sentence with >1000 n= atural parses, you're not concious of them and you're usually not willing t= o express ambiguity.
All of that is really obvious.

So you reduce all your reasoning to zero morphe= mes? This is the same argument pycyn put earlier. Different languages have = different sets of zeros.

However, as shown earlier= by Ilmen even without {xi vei mo'e zo'e} a simple {broda i brode} creates = a wide range of meanings. Note that {zo'e} here are implicit.

It's also hig= hly doubtful what is said consciously and what is not. Are zeros the only p= arts of the language expressed unconsciously according to you?
<= /div>

No. Zeros in language are not expressed un= conciously. They're conciously unexpressed. They're omitted because they're= obvious from context or irrelevant. When I say "I saw a girl with a telesc= ope", it's not obvious that I really mean "I saw a girl and either I used t= elescope to see her or she had a telescope with her". In fact I probably do= n't. The result of parsing should show what was meant and not what are all = of the possible and probably not intended syntactic constructions in the se= ntence.

On the other hand, when I say in Polish "Jem" (I eat) and no= t "Ja jem" (I eat), I'm very concious that "Ja" (I) is the subject, this fo= llows from the form of the verb (first person). It's not like I unconciousl= y express that I'm talking about me and I'd be surprised when I find out (w= hich is often true with syntactic ambiguity). The same goes for the example= s in the Wikipedia article.

You could argue that in "X of Y of Z" th= ere are zero parenthesis-like tokens: "( X of Y ) of Z" or "X of (Y of Z)".= But it doesn't help with parsing, it

=


Language is one thing and its descrip= tion is another one.

At the moment I can't see pol= yparsing in English except in polysemy but that is said not to be relevant = here.

I guess that your= votum is separatum.

I don'= t care how many people for and against here.
E.g And Rosta seems = to have a different understanding what grammar is and how it is connected t= o parsing although Parsing Expression Grammar hints at what it is for.

 =
 
 

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 am= biguous 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 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/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_1041_760580074.1424729975389-- ------=_Part_1040_1987173574.1424729975389--