On 10/1/06, Henry Rich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I advanced 4 new terms in JfC: 'list of' (array whose
items are), 'modifier' (adverb/conjunction),
'entity' (adverb/conjnction/noun/verb), and
'fragment' (executable bident/trident).
I like them, especially `modifier'. We do need a word
for this, and if `operator' is to be taken out of use for this
role, as you suggest, `modifier' is an excellent replacement.
`Operator' is traditional (incl. its use in APL), but `modifier'
is much more descriptive.
Concerning the terms you mentioned:
(1) 'derived verb/adverb/conjunction' is not an
obsolete concept. The entity produced by execution
of a modifier is (as I define it) a 'derived entity',
and that can be any part of speech. 2 : '&' is
a conjunction whose result is a conjunction.
Ah, yes, I completely forgot about (2 :). Thank you
for pointing that out.
Still, the sentence from § E of the Dictionary that I cited
is incorrect: it says that § F describes how `certain trains
form [...] conjunctions', but § F does not do that.
By the way, are there derived conjunctions whose
derivations do not, ultimately, resort to (2 :)?
(4) It would be nice to have a clear definition of 'bident'
and 'trident'. My definition of bident is a 2-word
fragment, and of trident, a 3-word fragment. So,
+ * - 5 + / are all bidents to me, and
2 + 3 3 : 'x + y' {. - }. are all tridents.
I propose to the Standards Committee, when we have
one, that this be the accepted definition.
I just noticed that the last sentence of (4) in my previous
post is erroneous. In fact, all three -- D, JfC and LJ -- do
indeed use `bident' and `trident' consistently.
So the Standard Committee already reached agreement :)
I also think the phrase 'boxed list' should be reserved
for <1 2 3 and not applied to 1;2;3 .
Sure, the latter shoud be `a list of boxed'.
Regards,
Boyko
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
