Since the original post on monoparsing as something unique or defining feature of Lojban provided no examples on how this monoparsing differs from English here is once again my full understanding using one example that is monoparsed both in English and Lojban:
"Fred saw a plane flying over Zurich" can have several meanings:
1. Attach as a relative clause to the first place:
Fred (who was flying over Zurich) saw a plane.
2. Attach as a relative clause to the second place:
Fred saw a plane (that was flying over Zurich).
3. Adverb-like clause (raising, attachment to the first place implied).
Fred saw a plane (while he was) flying over Zurich.
4. Adverb-like clause (raising, attachment to the second place implied).
Fred saw a plane (while it was) flying over Zurich.
Now all those examples have
a. One phonetic realization in English
b. Have several meanings.
c. They are NOT independent from the semantics and place structure of the verb "saw" (since the result will differ e.g. with verbs having another amount of places).
Can this be called syntactic ambiguity? You decide.
But in Lojban all of those example can be similarly expressed using one phonetic realisation:
{la fred pu viska lo vinji do'e lo se xi vei mo'e zo'e nei poi vofli ga'u la tsurix}
Two important notes:
I. Raising can appear when a Lojban tag is moved from {SUMTI ne TAG SUMTI} position to the main clause, e.g.:
{mi ne sepi'o lo forca cu citka} => {mi pilno lo forca lo nu citka}
However, according to CLL it's possible to use it in the main clause: {mi citka sepi'o lo forca}. Thus CLL allows for raising.
This isn't formalized in any way in CLL but this allows for 3. and 4. understandings of the English phrase.
II. Replacing {do'e} with {fa xi xo'e} can be possible but again "double FA" isn't described anywhere in CLL.
Since I and II aren't officially described and/or banned/allowed I have no idea why Lojban is said to have monoparsing different from the one in English.
Some actions/research I saw:
A. Double standards in interpreting English examples while not interpreting Lojban translations thus leading to a false conclusion that Lojban is different from English in parsing.
B. Providing no examples
C. Calling my translations "tricky/idiotic/stupid". This one is a biased opinion. Everything that is allowed in Lojban is neither tricky nor idiotic. What seems idiotic now can be found very useful in future.
D. Ignoring certain parts of Lojban. For sure, certain subsets of Lojban can not allow for such translations but then it should be clearly stated that not Lojban but some part of it has certain features (which) and how they differ from English.