Hi Tracy, The behaviour of Key and Cut actually reinforces my view of adverbs and conjunctions as preprocessors. What I find interesting in Key viewed in this way is that the 'x' argument contributes to the actions of the adverb but is not passed along to the modified verb 'u'. So in all cases of 'u/.' the verb 'u' is monadic as it acts on the parts of 'y' preprocessed according to the value of 'x'. Contrast this with Reflexive (u~y) and Passive (x u~ y), in which u will always be a dyadic irrespective of the valence of 'u~'.
'x u ;. n y' Cut ';.' viewed as a preprocessor uses its 'x' argument in the same way (using it as a selector of 'y' partitions and then having 'u' ignore it), although it has a further refinement introduced by the value of 'n'. Of course as you mentioned, by bonding a value to a conjunction you get an adverb. This makes Cut feel a bit like a family of adverbs, where the value of 'n' determines the nature of the preprocessing by adjusting the meaning of 'x'. Extrapolating a bit further gave me a new view of the Rank conjunction ' " '. Bonded with a value for 'n' in ' "n', this forms an adverb which selects the rank cells of the 'y' argument (if monadic) and 'x' and 'y' arguments (if dyadic). I hadn't considered the Rank conjunction as a preprocessor before, but of course it is. Additionally, it can use a list for 'n' which gives it independent control over 'x' and 'y' arguments. Hopefully, some of this makes sense. I would be interested to know if any of it resonates with your experience. Cheers, bob On 2010-11-23, at 8:38 AM, Tracy Harms wrote: > Bob, > > One more suggestion: Consider how a conjunction (e.g. Cut) becomes an adverb > with partial-application (binding) of one argument. With this in mind, every > conjunction can contribute toward an understanding of adverb. > > --Tracy > > > > On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 10:50 AM, bob therriault <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Thanks Tracy, >> >> I was looking for hotspots to improve my understanding of the way adverbs >> could be understood and Key and Cut sound like good starting places. I have >> used them occasionally but not so much with the meta-view I'm trying to >> develop now. I find it a little like the difference between using a knife in >> the kitchen and studying the metallurgy of blades; using a tool is only one >> facet of understanding. >> >> I'll post my reflections once I've done a little digging. >> >> Cheers, bob >> >> On 2010-11-23, at 5:46 AM, Tracy Harms wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 9:14 PM, bob therriault <[email protected] >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> I am starting to think of adverbs as a kind of preprocessor for a verb >> by >>>> changing the way arguments are parsed/adjusted prior to use. This may be >> a >>>> flawed view :) >>>> >>>> >>> If this view accommodates a rich understanding of Key (/.) and Cut (;.) >> I'd >>> wager it's not flawed. If your view of adverbs shifts with improved >>> understanding of these, I'll be eager to hear your revised summary. >>> >>> This is not to imply that you don't know those operators well. I have no >>> idea how well you understand them. I'n my experience, they're touchstones >>> for my understanding of operators. I often still need to study them when >> I >>> use them, but I'm getting better at knowing when they apply and the study >>> seems shorter each time. >>> >>> -- >>> Tracy >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
