Received: from mail-wi0-f184.google.com ([209.85.212.184]:36927) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YSK5V-0007mT-74 for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Sun, 01 Mar 2015 22:44:28 -0800 Received: by wiwl15 with SMTP id l15sf2273982wiw.4 for ; Sun, 01 Mar 2015 22:44:14 -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=tzdmS7X86DnrTZZH1vnDeM4bQjsKBcYzm0pQVAVMKE8=; b=LhlrcZ/N8u5YvvpMN/Nt2Jk2UPapfF/JVTURJFpg+bCXE3RImay+lbCjWnfv3L0KCo mvwoftbcJ57yDoEw/OUeYaXXSFyBWGYimIxgHQLu5I3ABfvnHtwAXW748ycaAnSxXnES cE4+LPsCU24QTToz9MnEGkGIivX1bMEhfJp3ubVEwtVoSPWn4/zV3u1IaGh3rEXmL4Wi 3/W9/19AotupD5UVkQfsk2Sg5RUcxLWUC5IIP0OvgyWh/UMerGK6gbPiEsMdzEaxifBF By5BuxR9jXN+x7UmLI0SKEPRvbIWQfxV/ntKqZKxqKY2e6Jyuzyh1Dd3P5nxchn202P7 8P9A== X-Received: by 10.152.7.71 with SMTP id h7mr308360laa.30.1425278654320; Sun, 01 Mar 2015 22:44:14 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.152.228.136 with SMTP id si8ls413783lac.11.gmail; Sun, 01 Mar 2015 22:44:12 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.152.88.40 with SMTP id bd8mr3509466lab.0.1425278652456; Sun, 01 Mar 2015 22:44:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wg0-x232.google.com (mail-wg0-x232.google.com. [2a00:1450:400c:c00::232]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id i8si33633wif.1.2015.03.01.22.44.12 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 01 Mar 2015 22:44:12 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c00::232 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c00::232; Received: by mail-wg0-x232.google.com with SMTP id l2so31400476wgh.9 for ; Sun, 01 Mar 2015 22:44:12 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.195.12.167 with SMTP id er7mr56423802wjd.54.1425278652354; Sun, 01 Mar 2015 22:44:12 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.194.86.200 with HTTP; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 22:43:51 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <7c35771e-8c3d-457a-9586-ffecfc45cb32@googlegroups.com> References: <20150204124517.GA1243@kuebelreiter.informatik.Uni-Osnabrueck.DE> <50d5006f-f02b-4a28-9894-6608729585fc@googlegroups.com> <8b2f2e8a-a89f-4544-9ee7-d5189bd4a07b@googlegroups.com> <7c35771e-8c3d-457a-9586-ffecfc45cb32@googlegroups.com> From: Gleki Arxokuna Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 09:43:51 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] the myth of monoparsing To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bb04bbec797ee0510488b52 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::232 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: - --047d7bb04bbec797ee0510488b52 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 2015-02-24 1:19 GMT+03:00 ianek : > 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. > Should? Then probably most parsers that show all possible trees of a sentence don't work that way. Clearly, they should. But this would require semantic analysis in most cases which usually isn't called "parsing" (of course replacing Lojban words with their expanded Lojban definitions would allow to reapply Lojban parsers to these expanded discourses, this is what you might mean). Back to your question of whether {do'e lo se xi vei mo'e zo'e} is expressed consciously and whether it can emulate the original English sentence. In this thread I'm not talking of any emulation. I'm talking about the myth of monoparsing as something unique to Lojban. It may be unique to methods of presenting Lojban but not to the language itself. People are confused thinking that language is how it is described in grammar textbooks. We don't need to try to emulate English syntactic tree using spoken Lojban. But we could create another parser where this new zero will be used (shutting down syntactic ambiguity) and marked as a zero in English (which could of course be used for Lojban as a machine interlingua). Let me repeat once again: I consider arrows (in graphical representation of syntactic trees) or its corresponding '=' operator PEG *a violation of least effort principle.* When context isn't enough you replace these vague connections with explicitly described ones. However, parsers should not force us to think in the latter ones. When we say that a language allowing dropping tenses or aspects is vague then why aren't we saying the same of syntax? Both cases represent least effort when trying to use language for its primary purpose: to transfer relevant information and do that faster. -- 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. --047d7bb04bbec797ee0510488b52 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

= 2015-02-24 1:19 GMT+03:00 ianek <janek37@gmail.com>:
No. Zeros in language are not expressed unc= onciously. They're conciously unexpressed. They're omitted because = they're obvious from context or irrelevant. When I say "I saw a gi= rl 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 wi= th her". In fact I probably don't. The result of parsing should sh= ow what was meant and not what are all of the possible and probably not int= ended syntactic constructions in the sentence.
=
Should? Then probably most parsers that show all possible trees of a se= ntence don't work that way. Clearly, they should. But this would requir= e semantic analysis in most cases which usually isn't called "pars= ing" (of course replacing Lojban words with their expanded Lojban defi= nitions would allow to reapply Lojban parsers to these expanded discourses,= this is what you might mean).

Back to your question of whether {do'e lo se x= i vei mo'e zo'e} is expressed consciously and whether it can emulat= e the original English sentence.

=
In this thread I'm not talking of any emulat= ion.
I'm talking about the myth of mono= parsing as something unique to Lojban.

=
It may be unique to methods of presenting = Lojban but not to the language itself.

=
People are confused thinking that language= is how it is described in grammar textbooks.

We don't need to try to emulate= English syntactic tree using spoken Lojban. But we could create another pa= rser where this new zero will be used (shutting down syntactic ambiguity) a= nd marked as a zero in English (which could of course be used for Lojban as= a machine interlingua).

Let me repeat once again:
I consider arrows (in graphical representation of syntactic trees) or its= corresponding '=3D' operator PEG
<= b>a violation of least effort principle.

When context isn't enough you re= place these vague connections with explicitly described ones.
However, parsers should not force us to think in the lat= ter ones.

When we say that a language allowing dropping tenses or aspects is vagu= e then why aren't we saying the same of syntax?
Both cases represent least effort when trying to use language for = its primary purpose: to transfer relevant information and do that faster.

--
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.
--047d7bb04bbec797ee0510488b52--