Gleki Arxokuna, On 11/02/2015 12:50:
Even in current English theory there are a lot of zero morphemes. What I'm proposing is just another zero morpheme.
This is what And agreed with me.
I'm not sure what I agreed with you. If it's that there are a lot of zero morphemes, then yes, I do agree, or at least I agree that there are syntactic nodes that don't correspond to any phonological node, and that multiple syntactic nodes can correspond to the same phonological node, so that the morphophonological structure of the sentence is only loosely homoeomorphic with the syntactic structure.
What I also agree with you on is that in both the English and Lojban examples we have a situation where one phonological form leads determinately to a set of multiple logical explicatures. But I disagree with your contention that the situations' internal workings are analogous. In the English case we have a set of ambiguous sentences, each sentence with the same phonology and different logicosyntactic form
; in the Lojban case we have a single unambiguous sentence, with a single phonology and a single logicosyntactic form, which is an underspecified generalization over a set of logical explicatures.
I don't understand why you keep on about an English parser. Parsers are of practical utility and of psycholinguistic significance, but what's relevant to the discussion is grammars, not parsers. There are theories that espouse the attractive idea that the grammar is a parser (e.g. Dynamic Syntax), but it's a minoritarian view.
--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.