On 3 Feb 2015 17:29, "Gleki Arxokuna" <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I only started this to understand how monoparsing in Lojban is different from English.
> If one sentence can be expanded into two distinct syntactic trees by applying precise numbers instead of imprecise {mo'e zo'e} then it's still monoparsing of course.
>
> What makes me wonder is why English can't be called monoparsed. May be because those who described it that way felt that polyparsing was the only reasonable explanation?I wouldn't necessarily say that Lojban is monoparsing, but certainly lots of people wish it to be, and indeed take it as a basic principle of the language, even if the actual monoparse of a given sentence is often unknown. Monoparsing means that to a given sentence phonology there corresponds no more than one sentence meaning (encoded logical form).
I find it hard to answer your question about why English can't be called monoparsed, since you and everyone else knows that to a given English sentence phonology there usually corresponds more than one sentence meaning -- the Zurich examples showed this.
That is, given all the evidence already available to you, what would it take to convince you that English isn't monoparsing?
And
--
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.