I remain unclear about the point of all this. It appears that the ambiguity of "ambiguity" is at the heart of the matter. Lojban claims to be anamphibolous, free from *syntactic* ambiguity. That is, every valid Lojban sentence has exactly one parse (and, furthermore, is the correct one, but this is not yet examined, let alone claimed). This does not prevent (or claim to) *semantic* ambiguity, where a word or phrase has more than one meaning (in some sense -- another source of problems) even when all the syntactic information remains the same, nor *referential* ambiguity, where the meaning of an _expression_ underdetermines it referent (the classic "Flash strode up to Ming. He struck him") And there are probably more varieties. Any of these can lead us to map a sentence on to a set of more explicit propositions (pronouns replaced by names, say, times and places fixed, and so on) which constitute the range of the ambiguity of the sentence, however generated. The sample English sentence generates range of four propositions (that we are concerned with at the moment) using only syntactic ambiguity. It is claimed that the given Lojban sentence (or one like it in all relevant ways) generates the same range of ambiguities without semantic ambiguity (since it is a Lojban sentence), thus using referential or semantic ambiguities -- or some other sort not yet discussed. That is an interesting trick, especially if, as appears to be claimed, it can always be done in Lojban. But I don't see what it has to do with monoparsing (except that it is assumed in the claim).
On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 11:29 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote: