On 6 Feb 2015 12:18, "Gleki Arxokuna" <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> 2015-02-06 15:01 GMT+03:00 And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>:
>>
>>
>> On 6 Feb 2015 11:24, "Gleki Arxokuna"
>> > I mean that there are several clauses floating in space and to which haeds they are attached is not known.
>>
>> From the point of view of the parser, this is true. The possible attachments licenced by the grammar are known, but the parser must choose among them (which is disambiguation).
>
>
> The parser must choose????
Where the parser is something that takes phonetic or graphic input and outputs an utterance interpretation.
If your parser is just something that takes a sentence phonology and outputs the set of syntactic forms it may correspond to, the parser doesn't choose, but rather the choosing is done by the process that operates on the output of the parser.
> But then this is a very critical limitation of the parser?
> Since when parsers HAVE TO attach to heads that aren't vague or can be derived from context?
> If an English parser used an analog to {zo'e} as some zero morpheme then a lot of (may be all but nobody knows) allegedly ambiguous sentences would become vague.
>
> If the theory of strictly applying relative clause to head of exact numbers isn't sufficient then a new theory that allows attaching to head No. {mo'e zo'e} has to be developed.
I don't understand any of these sentences.
> Similarly, if you disallow parsing {se xi vei mo'e zo'e nei} then one could devise a workaround that would split such sentences into several like it currently happens to parsers of natlangs.
My understanding of Lojban *would* allow parsing of that bit of Lojban, as a single sentence. But I say that without actually having understood what that fragment means.
> It seems that Lojbanists created a parser and a language that is too powerful to be easily adopted to parsing natlangs. (Which is probably to the lack of information about Lojban in the world but that's another story).
I didn't understand these sentences either.
>>
>> So if you call this syntactic vagueness and everybody else calls it syntactic ambiguity, let us agree to tolerate your terminological eccentricity.
>>
>> > This is what happens both in the English and in the Lojban examples.
>>
>> It could be that that is what happens with Lojban -- since no explicit grammar of Lojban exists, we can't say for sure -- but Lojban's design principles are committed to the principle of no syntactic ambiguity (which, following John Clifford, we call 'monoparsing'), and if that principle is respected then the Lojban example does not work in the way the English one does.
>
>
> Then this is a useless term that only states that parsers for other languages lag behind in their development.
If you are suggesting that the Lojban parser is technically advanced relative to natlang parsers, then that is just silly -- probably too silly for it to be worth continuing this discussion. But if you mean just that Lojban parsers are more successful at parsing Lojban than natlang parsers are at parsing natlangs, then that is obviously true because Lojban is simpler and unambiguous.
>> For the Zurich sentence, there are no rules of English that say "this phonological form can correspond to any of these n logicosyntactic forms".
>
>
> Haven't you assumed that the logicosyntactical form can be only one, not several of them?
I don't get what you mean.
>> It's accidental that the rules for assigning phonological forms to logicosyntactic forms happen to assign certain logicosyntactic forms the same phonological form. For your Lojban example, the conjectural rules of logicosyntax generate this single logically vague form, and assign it a phonological form that corresponds to no other logicosyntactic form.
>
> You are starting from theory. But note that both sentences produce the same interpretation, the same 4 possible interpretations.
If that's true -- I haven't checked (and couldn't because I don't understand the Lojban) -- then it's coincidence.
>
> If this happens then it might be that either the problem is in terminology and/or in theory that is unable to find the same structure in both sentences.
>
> Of course one sentence isn't enough but I can try translating other examples e.g. for one type of syntactic tree to avoid delving into numerous issues.
Explain to me what your hypothesis is, and how you propose to test it. Then perhaps I can seek some ambiguous English sentences for you to work on.
--And.
--