On 29 Jan 2015 10:48, "Gleki Arxokuna" <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> 2015-01-29 13:25 GMT+03:00 And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>:
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2015-01-29 10:35 GMT+03:00 And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 29 Jan 2015 06:38, "Gleki Arxokuna" <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > 2015-01-28 23:40 GMT+03:00 'John E Clifford' via lojban <lojban@googlegroups.com>:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> There are clearly two valid parses for the English.
>>>> >
>>>> > Why are you saying that the English sentence has two parses?
>>>>
>>>> Because it does have two (in fact, three) parses. In one, "flying" is an adverbial adjunct (of "saw") with controlled subject; in a second, it is "object complement" (predicate in a small-clausal complement of "saw"); in a third, it is adjunct of "plane".
>>>
>>>
>>> Of course, this can be a rival explanation but are those different parses due to ambiguity of the syntactic tree?
>>
>>
>> Yes.
>
>
> Where this ambiguity arises?
I don't know if I understand your question.
> Isn't it easier to state that "-ing" attaches to uncertain heads just like {calonu zo'e} does in Lojban ?
No. The three syntactic structures I describe are independently warranted; they're not invented just to account for this sentence's ambiguity. Sometimes syntactically different sentences just happen to have the same phonology; that's the very definition of ambiguity.