Re: [lojban] the myth of monoparsing

2015-02-12 15:38 GMT+03:00 v4hn <me@v4hn.de>:

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 03:50:25PM +0300, Gleki Arxokuna wrote:
> You yourself just showed several parses of the same sentence.
> This is how usual English parsers are constructed.
>
> However, there is another option to monoparse this English sentence.
>
> You mix English language and one current theory of how to parse it.
>
> [...]
>
> Even in current English theory there are a lot of zero morphemes. What I'm
> proposing is just another zero morpheme.

So, in essence, you do not question monoparsing in lojban,
but instead propose a new theory on how to parse natural languages.
Why didn't you say so right away?

May be because I did say it in the first sentence of the first post of this thread?

<quote>

Since the original post on monoparsing as something unique or defining feature of Lojban provided no examples on how this monoparsing differs from English here is once again my full understanding using one example that is monoparsed both in English and Lojban:

</quote>

Well, at the moment (and as far as I know also in the last decades),
nobody used such an approach. That's probably because it does not
solve any of the problems involved with parsing&interpreting language
as far as I can see.

Exactly! I can't see how introducing one more zero (in linguistic sense) into English syntax can solve any problems.

My complaint is (ke'usai)

<quote>

monoparsing as something unique or defining feature of Lojban

</quote>

This is like comparing sweet with red. If both parsers could be aligned we would see monoparsing (or polyparsing) in both languages.

In fact it all started in Facebook where I showed to pycyn {lo se xi vei pa ja re broda}.

He replied that he had meant a completely different tree.

I asked what means "completely".

He never replied.

He did reply in this thread by saying that by using {pa ja re} I emphasize them (numbers or the logical operator).

I accepted that criticism by changing to a true context dependent particle {zo'e}.

It seems to me that monoparsing is not a defining feature of Lojban and in fact it's quite natural for most languages to be monoparsed in most cases (if not all cases).

No example has been shown of how can monoparsing be never reached in natlangs if compared to how Lojban parses them.

No wonder that such myths are spread without any corroboration from real English and Lojban grammars and examples.

Go ahead and propose that idea to an NLP interest group.
In any case pe'i the lojban list is not the place to propose this.

I never intended to do so. I'm replying to the idea of monoparsing:

"monoparsing is the essential Lojban virtue." [ http://pckipo.blogspot.ru/2014/06/lojban-is-monoparsing.html ]

As I showed it is not an essential Lojban virtue.

It's an essential feature (not even virtue) of current Lojban parsers, although this may change in future with the appearance of other type of parsers for natlangs although I don't see how this can improve parsing in general.

If you want my opinion of what are essential Lojban virtues I would reply that it's a set of these two features:

1. A grammar formalized to a high degree

2. An active live community of speakers, contributors and developers.

The first distinguishes it from natlangs, the second separates it from "gua\spi" and similar projects.

These features can be called fuzzy (e.g. what is "high degree"? how much alive is Lojban community) and I will accept such criticism.

If anyone has other ideas what are the "essential virtues" of Lojban I'll be happy to hear from them.

v4hn

--
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.