Received: from mail-lb0-f192.google.com ([209.85.217.192]:34900) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YSQc6-0003kg-Kb for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 05:42:34 -0800 Received: by lbiw7 with SMTP id w7sf7744713lbi.2 for ; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 05:42:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from: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=d+4A05pcWTKHAv95y2VIdPSU35ntmVZaUxJPWaHbyn4=; b=keVdLO2PBQkiyc4Mluu+ctsD34uFkE7mz2Sy3R65RoDKfL/ZWjuWuPa68D3E5aWYo9 GQIigpQ193p9X0sYE4BEhOFwPErcUw8iyO1dsva8s0y5C0zslVAqYxtfo++m+8pQXmmi ihT5gjRfOyj+suhNvVX3HqhMjBgbnU9bYa28nz8ox5BtzKbezjIFyCvr5DeePcZwPot6 DnylGW55cQjncDSBh5QORCVDuQYXbE1oyAJxR24wVpafPpWva722KE8bTXXDPidiP5xX 4uJeJ8enzIlmYGZBxQY2N84BUNrkQi47kSSUtMttgNrIV8RCcV+CFUtUszt3ADPIpInd aq8g== X-Received: by 10.180.102.225 with SMTP id fr1mr105645wib.18.1425303739525; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 05:42:19 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.180.93.193 with SMTP id cw1ls514937wib.44.gmail; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 05:42:18 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.180.101.101 with SMTP id ff5mr2205817wib.5.1425303738926; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 05:42:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wi0-x22c.google.com (mail-wi0-x22c.google.com. [2a00:1450:400c:c05::22c]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id r6si673733wix.0.2015.03.02.05.42.18 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 02 Mar 2015 05:42:18 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of hobyrne@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::22c as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c05::22c; Received: by mail-wi0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id h11so14877105wiw.1 for ; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 05:42:18 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.14.7 with SMTP id l7mr36570260wic.40.1425303738791; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 05:42:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.194.127.165 with HTTP; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 05:42:18 -0800 (PST) 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> <7c35771e-8c3d-457a-9586-ffecfc45cb32@googlegroups.com> Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 08:42:18 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] the myth of monoparsing From: "Hugh O'Byrne" To: lojban@googlegroups.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04138cdf0c3da105104e6345 X-Original-Sender: HOByrne@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of hobyrne@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::22c as permitted sender) smtp.mail=hobyrne@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: -1.6 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.6 X-Spam_score_int: -15 X-Spam_bar: - --f46d04138cdf0c3da105104e6345 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 There's more here than I understand. How you would handle a particular case I have in mind would help clear things up. "Time flies like an arrow" can be used to mean a command: use a stopwatch to measure the motion of insects in the same way you would use a stopwatch to measure the motion of a projectile from a bow, or an observation: the hours pass by as swiftly as a projectile from a bow passes. In one case, "Time" is a verb, imperative, in the other, it is a noun, the subject of the verb "fly". Verbs and nouns are different grammatical entities, they sit at different places in parse trees. This makes the distinction between interpretations clearer than the example "Fred saw a plane flying over Zurich". Can you construct a single parse tree for the sentence "Time flies like an arrow" that is complete with respect to both interpretations of the sentence, or would you consider this not to be a proper English sentence, or is there something else to say about this case? On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 1:43 AM, Gleki Arxokuna wrote: > > 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. > -- 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. --f46d04138cdf0c3da105104e6345 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
There's more here than I understand.=C2=A0 How you wou= ld handle a particular case I have in mind would help clear things up.
=
"Time flies like an arrow" can be used to mean a c= ommand: use a stopwatch to measure the motion of insects in the same way yo= u would use a stopwatch to measure the motion of a projectile from a bow, o= r an observation: the hours pass by as swiftly as a projectile from a bow p= asses.

In one case, "Time" is a verb, im= perative, in the other, it is a noun, the subject of the verb "fly&quo= t;.=C2=A0 Verbs and nouns are different grammatical entities, they sit at d= ifferent places in parse trees.=C2=A0 This makes the distinction between in= terpretations clearer than the example "Fred saw a plane flying over Z= urich".

Can you construct a single parse tree= for the sentence "Time flies like an arrow" that is complete wit= h respect to both interpretations of the sentence, or would you consider th= is not to be a proper English sentence, or is there something else to say a= bout this case?




On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 = at 1:43 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:

2015-02-24= 1:19 GMT+03:00 ianek <janek37@gmail.com>:
No. Zeros in language are not expressed unconciously.= They're conciously unexpressed. They're omitted because they'r= e 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&quo= t;. In fact I probably don't. The result of parsing should show what wa= s meant and not what are all of the possible and probably not intended synt= actic constructions in the sentence.

Should? Then probably most parsers that show all possible trees of a sente= nce don't work that way. Clearly, they should. But this would require s= emantic analysis in most cases which usually isn't called "parsing= " (of course replacing Lojban words with their expanded Lojban definit= ions would allow to reapply Lojban parsers to these expanded discourses, th= is is what you might mean).

Back to your question of whether {do'e lo se xi v= ei mo'e zo'e} is expressed consciously and whether it can emulate t= he original English sentence.

In this thread I'm not talking of any emulation= .
I'm talking about the myth of monopar= sing as something unique to Lojban.

It may be unique to methods of presenting Loj= ban 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 En= glish syntactic tree using spoken Lojban. But we could create another parse= r 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 c= orresponding '=3D' operator PEG
= a violation of least effort principle.
=
When context isn't enough you repl= ace these vague connections with explicitly described ones.
However, parsers should not force us to think in the latte= r 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 it= s 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+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.
--f46d04138cdf0c3da105104e6345--