[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] Re: Questions about Lojban



2015-02-07 19:25 GMT+03:00 And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>:


On 7 Feb 2015 06:26, "Gleki Arxokuna" <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 2015-02-06 22:28 GMT+03:00 And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>:
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> When did I say that monoparsing is a myth in general?

Most prominently in titling the thread "The myth of monoparsing".

"monoparsing" first appears in  the pycyn's paper. This is a clear reference to it. 

>
> I said "Since the original post on monoparsing as something unique or defining feature of Lojban provided no examples on how this monoparsing differs from English "

Fine, but the sentences of mine that you quoted above still apply to your belief that monoparsing is not distinctive to Lojban but is shared with natlangs.


I'm not proposing  a new paradigm if you call "vaguely attach clauses to heads" a new paradigm.

Similarly, one could disallow parsing {mo'e zo'e}. This will lead to disruption of monoparsing and cutting my translation into several sentences.

But I'm not going to even add this to any issue list of Lojban parsers.
It seems okay to me.

Both ways (allowing vague attachment in English and disallowing {mo'e zo'e}) don't seem quite productive to me.

The only thing they produce is misunderstaning in that Lojban is unique in monoparsing.

And I provided a Russian example only to show that in terms of pragmatism being able to provide such "vague syntax" isn't a thing that is very necessary.

It's not an alternative paradigm.
It doesn't even make any hints at abandoning existing English parsers.
At another level syntactic ambiguity turns into vagueness.

And my complaint is that someone found one thing sweet and another thing red and decided that the first thing isn't sweet without even tasting it.

Both languages are monoparsed and both languages are syntactically ambiguous.

Why? Because their existing parsers (as of 2015) work in different ways.
But this doesn't affect languages themselves.



--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.

--
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.