Raul wrote:
> Anyways, the definition which is relevant when cap is the left tine of
> a fork is a passive definition, and not an imperative definition. And
> making this distinction -- that it's being used passively -- seems
> worthwhile.
There are several issues with this interpretation. The foremost is that [:
is _not being used at all_ . Not imperatively, not passively, not as quoted
code, just - not. [1]
Any attempt to impose some kind of meaning to [: in the context of capped
fork will inevitably founder, because capped fork is a grammatical rule.
Grammar precedes semantics ("meaning"). At the point of interpreting capped
fork, everything is manipulated symbolically; opaquely; meaning does not
enter in. There is no interpretation or wordsmithing that can find its way
around this obstacle.
The analogy to gerunds does not hold water. Gerunds are simply quoted code.
Their purpose is to defer execution (or at least carry the potential for
later execution). But it is still the definitions ("imperative meanings")
of the constituent elements that lend gerunds their power. Absent those
meanings, gerunds are just boxed nouns (and "noun" of course, is
interchangeable with "value" or "meaning"). But [: has no potential for
execution, in the context of a capped fork, and its imperative definition
("always produce domain error") is not used, referred to, deferred, or
relevant.
Furthermore, the purpose of gerunds is to homogenize words, to intentionally
(albeit temporarily) camouflage differences in meaning. This opacity allows
gerundial components to be treated identically (without regard for value),
permitting the kind of structural manipulation which J is famous for. So
if there such a thing as a "passive definition", there is only one (the
atomic box), not one per word. But the whole point of [: is that it is
distinguished and distinguishable.
Cap is simply a symbol that triggers an otherwise impossible grammatical
production. It is not dormant, or passive, or even used. It is noticed,
and immediately discarded. It has no "definition" when it's the left tine
of a fork. Not imperative, not passive, just - not.
-Dan
[1] From DoJ §II.F:
http://www.jsoftware.com/help/dictionary/dictf.htm
FORK CAPPED FORK
g g g g
/ \ / \ | |
f h f h h h
| | / \ / \ | / \
y y x y x y y x y
If f is a cap ([:) the capped branch simplifies the
forks to g h y and g x h y .
Note that the letter "f" does not appear in the diagram for CAPPED FORK or
in the noun phrase formula given below it.
That is: the meaning, the definition, the imperative, is in the pattern [:
g h . Not in [: .
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
