Re: [lojban] the myth of monoparsing

I have a question, that I might understand your position better.

On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 3:42 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:

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:
"Fred saw a plane flying over Zurich" can have several meanings:
1. Attach as a relative clause to the first place:
Fred (who was flying over Zurich) saw a plane.
2. Attach as a relative clause to the second place:
Fred saw a plane (that was flying over Zurich).
3. Adverb-like clause (raising, attachment to the first place implied).
Fred saw a plane (while he was) flying over Zurich.
4. Adverb-like clause (raising, attachment to the second place implied).
Fred saw a plane (while it was) flying over Zurich.

I went to the wesite

http://www.link.cs.cmu.edu/link/submit-sentence-4.html

and typed "Fred saw a plane flying over Zurich", checked "Show all linkages", and clicked "Submit one sentence". The result was:

Found 6 linkages (6 with no P.P. violations)
  Linkage 1, cost vector = (UNUSED=0 DIS=0 AND=0 LEN=8)

       +---Os---+                      
  +-Ss-+   +-Ds-+---Mg---+--MVp-+--Js-+
  |    |   |    |        |      |     |
Fred saw.v a plane.n flying.v over Zurich 

Constituent tree:

(S (NP Fred)
   (VP saw
       (NP (NP a plane)
           (VP flying
               (PP over
                   (NP Zurich))))))

  Linkage 2, cost vector = (UNUSED=0 DIS=0 AND=0 LEN=9)

       +---Os---+        +-----Osn----+
  +-Ss-+   +-Ds-+---Mg---+---K--+     |
  |    |   |    |        |      |     |
Fred saw.v a plane.n flying.v over Zurich 

Constituent tree:

(S (NP Fred)
   (VP saw
       (NP (NP a plane)
           (VP flying
               (PRT over)
               (NP Zurich)))))

  Linkage 3, cost vector = (UNUSED=0 DIS=0 AND=0 LEN=10)

       +--------Pg-------+             
       +---Os---+        |             
  +-Ss-+   +-Ds-+        +--MVp-+--Js-+
  |    |   |    |        |      |     |
Fred saw.v a plane.n flying.v over Zurich 

Constituent tree:

(S (NP Fred)
   (VP saw
       (NP a plane)
       (VP flying
           (PP over
               (NP Zurich)))))

  Linkage 4, cost vector = (UNUSED=0 DIS=0 AND=0 LEN=11)

       +--------Pg-------+             
       +---Os---+        +-----Osn----+
  +-Ss-+   +-Ds-+        +---K--+     |
  |    |   |    |        |      |     |
Fred saw.v a plane.n flying.v over Zurich 

Constituent tree:

(S (NP Fred)
   (VP saw
       (NP a plane)
       (VP flying
           (PRT over)
           (NP Zurich))))

  Linkage 5, cost vector = (UNUSED=0 DIS=0 AND=0 LEN=11)

       +-----------MVp----------+      
       +---Os---+               |      
  +-Ss-+   +-Ds-+---Mg---+      +--Js-+
  |    |   |    |        |      |     |
Fred saw.v a plane.n flying.v over Zurich 

Constituent tree:

(S (NP Fred)
   (VP saw
       (NP (NP a plane)
           (VP flying))
       (PP over
           (NP Zurich))))

  Linkage 6, cost vector = (UNUSED=0 DIS=1 AND=0 LEN=9)

       +---Os---+-------Mp------+      
  +-Ss-+   +-Ds-+---Mg---+      +--Js-+
  |    |   |    |        |      |     |
Fred saw.v a plane.n flying.v over Zurich 

Constituent tree:

(S (NP Fred)
   (VP saw
       (NP (NP (NP a plane)
               (VP flying))
           (PP over
               (NP Zurich)))))

Assertion: "From the sentence "Fred saw a plane flying over Munich", with those words in that order and no parentheses or punctuation, there is more than one parse tree". Question: Do you agree or disagree with that assertion?