The way I think it should be documented is the way I wrote in my 4
suggested changes, as emended by Raul wrt m`:6 .
Henry Rich
On 9/6/2018 4:19 PM, Jose Mario Quintana wrote:
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interpretation (which seems borne out by your historical references) and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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
