Raul wrote: > [2] When I look at the dictionary page for agenda, it does *not* state > that m must be a gerund for the [email protected] case -- it only states that > requirement on the [email protected] case (where it's trivial to know the result at > parse time).
However, the Dictionary merely says "The case [email protected] uses the result of the verb v to perform the selection." which could be interpreted as [email protected] just being a variant of [email protected] where the result of the verb v is used to perform the selection. I asked, a long time ago, the question, [Jprogramming] Wrong agenda? Jose Mario Quintana http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2009-November/016930.html Roger provided some background information, [Jprogramming] Wrong agenda? Roger Hui http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2009-November/016938.html I then suggested to update the Dictionary or extend the implementation; he seemed to be inclined to extend the implementation, [Jprogramming] Wrong agenda? Roger Hui http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2009-November/016941.html but neither the dictionary was changed nor the implementation was extended. On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 12:42 PM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > Ok... > > If I adopt this perspective - that a gerund is a list ARs of verbs and > only verbs - I run into some ... ambiguities ... that might be worth > some thought: > > [1] In the left tine of a fork, a noun AR is treated as a verb AR > (derived with "_). > > [2] When I look at the dictionary page for agenda, it does *not* state > that m must be a gerund for the [email protected] case -- it only states that > requirement on the [email protected] case (where it's trivial to know the result at > parse time). > > Anyways ... maybe I need to sleep on this, because I'm still not sure > what I am overlooking. > > -- > Raul > > > On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 12:29 PM Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > You are right. In m`:0 and m`:3 m must be a gerund, while in m`:6 m can > > contain any valid ARs. > > > > Henry Rich > > > > On 9/6/2018 12:15 PM, Raul Miller wrote: > > > That said, in the mean time, I would imagine that the left argument to > > > the Evoke Gerund conjunction (`:) must be a gerund, and that context > > > certainly has allowed trains which included non-verb ARs. > > > > > > --- > > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > > https://www.avg.com > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
