Re: [lojban] Re: Questions about Lojban

[Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>]

2015-01-29 18:20 GMT+03:00 And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>:

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.

You have a sentence.

You interpret it.

After this interpretation you call it ambiguous.

But this is how Lojban sentence works as well.

{ca lo nu se xi vei mo'e zo'e}  after the interpretation leads us to the conclusion that:

{mo'e zo'e} can take the value 1 or 2.

They are not invented just to account for this sentence's ambiguity.

And I disagree that the English sentence has any ambiguity by itself. After you interpret it - then yes. But that's exactly what happens to the Lojban sentence as well.

And one may call the two interpretations of Lojban sentence as having the same phonology. This would be idiotic indeed but valid.

--
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.