On 6 Feb 2015 11:33, "Gleki Arxokuna" <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> 2015-02-06 14:27 GMT+03:00 And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>:
>>
>>
>> On 29 Jan 2015 15:57, "Gleki Arxokuna" <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > You have a sentence.
>> > You interpret it.
>> > After this interpretation you call it ambiguous.
>>
>> No, not at all. You have a sentence, which may be ambiguous, which means that it belongs to a group of sentences with the same phonology and different logicosyntax. Then you disambiguate (select a sentence). Then you interpret it.
>
>
> I don't perceive the English sentence in question as ambiguous then. It just has several clause not explicitly attached to a certain head.
The possible structures that result from attaching the clauses exist only because they are generated by syntactic combinatoric rules, and they correspond to the sentence phonology only by virtue of the rules that define correspondences between phonological and syntactic forms. Those separate syntactically generated structures are the different syntaxes of the ambiguous sentence. The impossible structures that don't result from attaching the clauses in illicit ways are not generated by the combinatoric rules.
Your idea isn't stupid: in principle a sentence's syntax might consist of more than one completely discrete fragment, which get integrated into a single logical explicature during the process of utterance interpretation. But nevertheless with respect to holding this view, you are in a minority of approximately one, and the majority contains many lifetimes devoted to the study of syntax in general and English syntax in particular. If you become a syntactician of English then you and I can compare our respective theories. Were you able to write a substantial grammar based on your "juxtaposed fragments" idea, it would certainly be original and intriguing, tho of course my money is against it being credible.
Your belief that monoparsing is a myth seems to be intimately bound up with a deeply eccentric theory of English syntax that bravely discards the work of all syntacticians who have preceded you. I am not yet persuaded to abandon the current paradigm and embrace your new one.
Again, I invoke the wisdom of the majority just in order for you to understand why you're not agreed with.
> My Lojban translation shows that as well.
I don't believe Lojban translations can tell us anything about English syntax.
> If English parsers don't have {zo'e} then it's a matter of theory to add {zo'e} as a zero morpheme and the English sentence will magically become unambiguous.
I don't understand this at all.
--And.
--