For the sake of clarity: - The general adverb is named “Am”. - It is tacit - Its input is a verb, say “f" - Its output is a (derived, tacit) adverb, named “Dam” - Dam consumes either verbs or nouns; call this argument “u” - Whether a verb or noun, Dam converts its argument, u, whether noun or verb, into its own atomic representation - After converting u to an atomic representation, Dam calls f with the argument (now a noun by definition) u - The verb f produces a new atomic representation (via manipulation of u) - This new atomic representation is the result (output) of Dam
In re: converting the atomic rep back into a verb: I can handle that myself; there may be multiple layers / applications of Am, so I’d prefer the result to be an a.r. which I’ll `:6 at the very end. Note that the resultant a.r. may represent something other than a verb: another adverb, for example, or a conjunction or a noun, etc. -Dan > On Dec 14, 2015, at 3:52 PM, Raul Miller <rauldmil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Dan Bron <j...@bron.us> wrote: >> What I’d really like is a general adverb that >> >> - Accepts a verb as input, deriving another adverb >> - That adverb converts its own input, whether noun or verb, to its atomic >> representation >> - Then the derived adverb applies the original verb to the atomic rep it >> just created, allowing it to produce a new atomic rep > > So your "general adverb" would map a verb into an adverb which > consumes verbs and produces atomic reps? Or did you intend an > additional step there, which translates an atomic rep back to a verb? > > -- > Raul > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
