I did not say that his post indicated "his inclination to do so." Instead, I wrote, "he seemed to be inclined." Frankly, I have no use at all to such an extension nowadays. The point that I was trying to make was that the Dictionary could be interpreted in different ways and I tried to provide Roger's historical explanation for the Dictionary's wording which, I thought, could be of some interest.
By the way, you wrote: > I will update NuVoc, though. and you wrote earlier: > [2] My guess is that Ken imagined at first that gerunds were always verbs, and then > later certain cases were generalized to allow other types, and the Dictionary didn't > change to match the implementation. My guess is the same as yours. An interpretation of the Dictionary's entries for `:6 and [email protected] imply that they can only produce verbs and NuVoc is clear about that. The J806 implementation allows to use, say, generalized gerunds (or gerundives, or whatever they might be called, or not called) to produce nouns, adverbs, and conjunctions in addition to just verbs. Are you saying that you will update NuVoc to conform to the J806 implementation or am I misreading what you wrote? On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 2:38 PM, Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote: > I think it is a misrepresentation to report Roger's saying that extending > the meaning of [email protected] had merit as indicating his inclination to do so. I > too can see the merit in it, but greater demerit, because it makes for more > run-time checking to handle cases of highly dubious interest. > > Roger left his mantle around here somewhere, but it's way too big for me - > I think it was Ken's once. All I can say is that I stand by my > interpretation (which seems borne out by your historical references) and > have no interest in changing the implementation. I will update NuVoc, > though. > > Henry Rich > > > On 9/6/2018 2:24 PM, Jose Mario Quintana wrote: > >> 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 >> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
