On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Jose Mario Quintana <[email protected]> wrote: > Not necessarily, explicit adverbs can do whatever a (v hg) adverb can; > however, (v adv) can do things that explicit adverbs are not allowed to do.
Are you sure? If by "do" you mean something about the details of how the adverb is structured, ok - but that is not a constraint on the relationship between the argument and the result, which is not what I would think that the word "do" refers to. And, in that general vein, I suppose extreme constraints on uses of names might somehow qualify, also. (Though for this to be relevant to anything you sort of have to ignore the significant use of names which comes with our typical J usage.) That said, there might be interesting cases, involving resource limits where (v hg) does something which an explicit workalike does not. But I can't think of any other reason why a (v hg) adverb could do anything that an explicit adverb cannot. Put differently, can you give any examples of this? Thanks, -- Raul ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
