The key word is "allowed." For example,
* <adv ┌─┐ │*│ └─┘ X=. * <adv 2 (>X) 3 6 Of course, they can break the rules, t3=. 1 : 'x <adv' * t3 ┌─┐ │*│ └─┘ Furthermore, tacit verbs can (break the rules and) produce entities which explicit verbs are not allowed, in an even stronger sense, to produce, t4=. 1 : 'x (3 : ''< y'') adv' * t4 |noun result was required: t4 | <y On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
