bob therriault-2 wrote: > > Wheww, > > I thought I was really missing some fundamental point on that one! Of > course, adverbs are usually used to modify verbs rather than nouns. > > Further, could you clarify the your understanding of 'u/~' for me? I tend > to look at it as a) adverb '~' modifying adverb '/' which modifies verb > 'u', but perhaps I should look at it as b) adverb '/' modifying the verb > 'u' which produces a verb modified by adverb '~'. I had thought that the > Hook/Adverb rule of the parser indicated a), but looking closer I think > that b) may be correct. > > In the situation that we drop the verb 'u', we would get '/~' which would > be adverb '~' modifying adverb '/', although I am not sure that most > create adverbs this way (so the predominant of adverb modifying verb would > still stand). > > [...] > >From the viewpoint of execution of u/~ as well as u(/~), only the second interpretation is correct, i.e
u/~ <-> (u/)~ and also u(/~) <-> (u/)~ >From these two, however, we can infer equations: u/~ === (u/)~ === u(/~) So in this sense both of your interpretations would be correct. I read expressions with adverbs along the lines from Tracy's post. When it comes to tacit adverbs, which you already mentioned when you talk about dropping u, I think of them in terms of the standard composition of (higher-order) functions (maybe that's why they're one of the easier parts of J's grammar?). For example, for some adverbs A, B and C, the following tacit adverb A B C is like a function composition C o B o A This is reinforced by adverbs being associative: A B C === (A B) C === A (B C) (provided, as usual, that there are no side-effects involved). Another great thing about J is that conjunctions can be turned into adverbs, allowing us to do things like: f...@g@u === f (@g)(@u) == g (f@)(@u) == u (g@)(f@) i.e put a verb provided as an argument to an arbitrary but fixed place within some composition of verbs. This works generally, for any expression of the form u1 c1 u2 c2 u3 ... un cn u, ui are verbs, ci are conj. Since any verb train can be written in this form, so it can be parametrized in the above manner, etc. > [...] > > Thanks for taking the time to walk me through my muddling. > > Cheers, bob > > On 2010-11-22, at 10:49 AM, Roger Hui wrote: > >> Yes, you got me there for m~ . But by far the majority >> of adverbs modify verbs (or gerunds, those verb like nouns), >> and I myself would not get into the few cases (and gerunds) >> with beginners. >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: bob therriault <[email protected]> >> Date: Monday, November 22, 2010 10:33 >> Subject: Re: [Jchat] A visual look at the Reflexive Adverb >> To: Chat forum <[email protected]> >> >>> Hi Roger, >>> >>> I am a bit confused (not the first time :) ) In the case of >>> Evoke (m~), I thought m was a noun. I think I may be >>> misunderstanding this on a conceptual level, as I don't see how >>> Evoke modifies a verb. With regard to the use of 'tricky', I >>> would completely agree that this is a subjective view, and >>> probably shouldn't be used when introducing concepts. >>> >>> Cheers, bob >>> >>> On 2010-11-22, at 9:47 AM, Roger Hui wrote: >>> >>>> I have not viewed the videos. I have read the text >>>> of the first link and there is a factual error: >>>> >>>> The tricky part is that to be truly useful the >>> adverb >>>> changes its action depending on what part of >>> speech >>>> it is modifying ... >>>> >>>> This is incorrect because an adverb always modifies a verb, >>>> just like its most common use in English. >>>> >>>> I would also argue with your assertion that adverbs are >>>> tricky, but that's a matter of opinion. "Everyone" >>>> understands run quickly, eat quickly, talk quickly, etc. >>>> For the mathematically inclined you can also mention >>>> "function family". >>>> >>>> What _is_ tricky is the alternative model/explanation >>>> that adverbs replace. There you have to offer a tortured >>>> and intimidating explanation of function vs. operator, >>>> Heaviside operator, tensor analysis, etc. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: bob therriault <[email protected]> >>>> Date: Monday, November 22, 2010 9:33 >>>> Subject: [Jchat] A visual look at the Reflexive Adverb >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> >>>>> Greetings, >>>>> >>>>> I've posted two screencasts on the use of adverbs in J. >>>>> >>>>> The first is a look at J adverbs in general using ~ as an >>>>> example [1] and the second is a more specific look at the >>>>> Reflexive Adverb [2]. I look forward to feedback. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, bob >>>>> >>>>> [1] http://bobtherriault.wordpress.com/2010/11/17/those- >>> tricky- >>>>> adverbs/[2] >>>>> http://bobtherriault.wordpress.com/2010/11/22/reflexive- >>> adverb- >>>>> monadic/ >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/A-visual-look-at-the-Reflexive-Adverb-tp30280822s24193p30283785.html Sent from the J Chat mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
