Linda, There is a similarity that allows J's verb trains and graphic modifiers to be compared to silent and spoken aspects of phrasing in natural languages. I doubt we can rely on that similarity to much advantage.
In J, when a verb is created tacitly from a combination of more than one component verb, the relationship between the arguments and results of its components is of particular interest. The "flow" among component verbs is emphasized by J, being one of the few things that gets written down when writing J. We can write down a relationship among verbs by arranging them in a train, or we can write down a relationship between verbs by making them arguments to modifiers. Yes, J emphasizes forks and hooks by making them particularly easy to write, which is done by making the conjoining meta-function invisible (i.e. unwritten). But verb trains are not wholly unlike conjunctions. They are better thought of as kinds of conjunctions. In writing tacit J we have choices as to how we put verbs together, but that's what we're doing whether we use trains or not as the means. Trains are handy for many things but they are not optimal for all things. J has a rich collection of additional operators for "routing," with Under serving as a fine representative. In my experience defining tacit verbs is largely about arranging the component verbs, and much of this is a matter of selecting their internal arrangement. Despite the fact that the J programming language is biased toward forks, it's up to each author to choose among all the options when phrasing. -- T ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
