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

Re: [lojban] the myth of monoparsing


2015-02-12 19:24 GMT+03:00 Ilmen <ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com>:
As for the "Fred saw a plane flying over Zurich" sentence, it's certainly possible to have a monoparse if we allow more than two branches per node, like the below:

Please, note that by "vague syntax" above I mean that the principle of least effort applies not only to tenses, number but even to syntactic tree.
Namely, language might omit declaring to which head a branch is attached.

When English parsers force an assumption that a branch must be attached to a strictly specified head they break this principle.

E.g. when in {mi citka lo plise} you derive tense from context similarly when using vague clauses you derive the head it is attached to from context.


I just want to separate what I said about vague syntax from what you just suggested for multibranching.

--
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.