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

Re: [lojban] the myth of monoparsing


2015-02-24 1:19 GMT+03:00 ianek <janek37@gmail.com>:
No. Zeros in language are not expressed unconciously. They're conciously unexpressed. They're omitted because they're obvious from context or irrelevant. When I say "I saw a girl with a telescope", it's not obvious that I really mean "I saw a girl and either I used telescope to see her or she had a telescope with her". In fact I probably don't. The result of parsing should show what was meant and not what are all of the possible and probably not intended syntactic constructions in the sentence.

Should? Then probably most parsers that show all possible trees of a sentence don't work that way. Clearly, they should. But this would require semantic analysis in most cases which usually isn't called "parsing" (of course replacing Lojban words with their expanded Lojban definitions would allow to reapply Lojban parsers to these expanded discourses, this is what you might mean).

Back to your question of whether {do'e lo se xi vei mo'e zo'e} is expressed consciously and whether it can emulate the original English sentence.

In this thread I'm not talking of any emulation.
I'm talking about the myth of monoparsing as something unique to Lojban.

It may be unique to methods of presenting Lojban but not to the language itself.

People are confused thinking that language is how it is described in grammar textbooks.

We don't need to try to emulate English syntactic tree using spoken Lojban. But we could create another parser where this new zero will be used (shutting down syntactic ambiguity) and marked as a zero in English (which could of course be used for Lojban as a machine interlingua).

Let me repeat once again:
I consider arrows (in graphical representation of syntactic trees) or its corresponding '=' operator PEG
a violation of least effort principle.

When context isn't enough you replace these vague connections with explicitly described ones.
However, parsers should not force us to think in the latter ones.

When we say that a language allowing dropping tenses or aspects is vague then why aren't we saying the same of syntax?
Both cases represent least effort when trying to use language for its primary purpose: to transfer relevant information and do that faster.

--
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.