Note that phrases which use nouns also allow for verb phrases NVV, NA, NAV, NCV, VCN, and NCN can all produce verb phrases (though anything involving an adverb or conjunction is dependent on the specific adverb or conjunction being used).
FYI, -- Raul On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 9:35 AM 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming <[email protected]> wrote: > > AV AVV AAV CVV VVC are special in that they allow for verb phrases and VVV to > form "past 3rd term" > > +-@ + > > + -@+ > > but not in 2nd term for CVV > > @ +@- # > > (@ + @) - # > > > @ +~ # % # NB. CVA doesn't exist as train, but made anyway @+~ > > |syntax error > > CVV is similar in its group for "allowing" VVV to form/group to its right > > @ # +@# % # > > @ # (+@# % #) > > @ # +@# % NB. odd # of verb terms creates adverb (CVV)V > > (@ # (+@#))% > > > It turns out that ACA is also in this list. Perhaps the rule is Modifier > trains that start with A are "permissive" while those that start with C > (except CVV) are not: > > > /@/ #@$#$#$ > > (/ @ /)(#@$ # $ # $) > > @@@ #@$#$#$ NB. verb phrase formation interrupted until CVV established. > > (((@ @ @) # @) $ #)($ # $) > > > And then the permissive (of verb phrase creation and VVV formation) rule can > be worded as modifier trains that start with V, A, or CV except for CVC > > Some convenient formations from this rule: 4 trains adverb formation when > they start with a verb > > > +@@- NB. equivalent to (+@)(@-) > (+ @ @)- > +@-@ > +@-@ > > /@/# NB. adverb > > (/ @ /)# > > +(/ @ /#) > > +/@(#/) > > +/@/# NB. creates AV > > (+/ @ /)# > > +/ @ / # % NB. ACA special in that verb phrase formation to create VCA is > allowed > > (+/ @ /) # % > > -@+/ @ / # % NB. AVV created > > (-@+/ @ /) # % > > > +@-@@ NB. VCC also permissive > > +@- @ @ > > +/-@@ NB. CC created > > (+/ - @)@ > > > > On Tuesday, December 21, 2021, 03:18:50 a.m. EST, Hauke Rehr > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I don’t see the common distinguishing property of AV AVV AAV CVV > (and later VVC is added). > They are said to be both “fork forming” and “train forming” > – but only few combinations in the table don’t form a fork > Some are executed, then there are runs of adverbs, CA and CAA > also follow that pattern, and then we only have VV, AV and CC > which form hooks. Why is AV part of the list then? > > I’m puzzled. I must have missed something. > > > > > > > tutorial: > The “runs of adverbs rule” may be a good point to start. > There will be less exceptions to explain later on > and it is quite simple. > Maybe that one could actually stay on the fork page? > Or on a general Adverbs page instead? > You don’t need to think of them as modifier trains. > (But they’ll fit the general modifier trains framework > once you get to learn about it.) > > > > Am 21.12.21 um 04:44 schrieb Henry Rich: > > The text starting with 'Longer forks/trains' is a welcome addition, > > though I find the long list of examples at the bottom of the page needs > > some explanation or perhaps formatting into a table. > > > > BUT: I think this would be better as an Ancillary Page, linked by the > > fork page and referred to in the list of pages at the bottom of the main > > NuVoc page. > > > > It is an exotic corner of J, dear to those who use it, but not something > > we want a naive user stumbling across when they look up Forks. > > > > Henry Rich > > > > On 12/20/2021 9:14 PM, 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming wrote: > >>> modifier forks are parsed differently than traditional forks. > >>> Modifer forks longer than 3 times are 3-grouped/parenthesised from > >>> left to right instead of right to left of traditional forks. A mixed > >>> fork is a modifier fork > >> The last sentence is not accurate. I've attempted to describe the > >> rules for a mixed (modifier and verb in one) fork/train at: > >> > >> https://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Vocabulary/fork#Longer_forks.2Ftrains > >> > >> Not sure if it is complete or as descriptive as it should be. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Monday, December 20, 2021, 03:38:15 p.m. EST, 'Pascal Jasmin' via > >> Programming <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> And presumably there's some use for having the ability to carry around > >> a partially constructed fork. > >> > >> A likely bigger advantage than parentheses avoidance. > >> > >> for a tutorial, I should probably have included the bible on modifier > >> trains earlier on the > >> thread: https://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Vocabulary/fork#invisiblemodifiers > >> > >> > >> modifier forks are parsed differently than traditional forks. Modifer > >> forks longer than 3 times are 3-grouped/parenthesised from left to > >> right instead of right to left of traditional forks. A mixed fork is > >> a modifier fork > >> > >> (+/ % # @ @) > >> > >> (+/ % #) @ @ > >> > >> the most useful partially constructed fork (or any longer than 2 > >> param modifier) "constructor"/compound modifer is one that provides > >> binding flexibility. > >> > >> The "native" modifier trains are already pretty complete. They can be > >> categorized into more useful/less useful categories. The more useful: > >> > >> A V NB. allows compound adverb modifier to bind V if it returns a > >> conjunction. (or create hook) > >> A V V NB. simple fork with 1 parameter. or ]:WU in your world. if VWU > >> wanted instead then ]:W~U > >> [. V ]. NB. conjunction with center param fixed > >> AAV NB. where AAV is (]: ]: V )then it is U (]: ]: V)W a ~ allows V > >> (]: (]:~) U) W > >> > >> > >> The last 2 are conjunctions with either a center or outter tine > >> fixed. This is the same as my F0 F1 F2 adverbs when they are fixed. > >> But F0 F1 F2 are more flexible in that they allow hook formation or by > >> passing the ars of modifiers, for purposes of modifier train forming. > >> F0 F1 F2 also allow binding first choice of 2 out of 3 possible > >> parameters. Conceptually, F0 F1 F2 are used because of a specificaly > >> desired first binding, and when that natural choice is made (U F0), (W > >> F1) or (V F2) then there is full choice in binding one of the > >> remaining 2 params. > >> > >> A final completing native adverb train completer is: > >> > >> (U(]:]:V)) NB. adverb where W is final parameter completing the adverb > >> range: AVV and AV~V > >> > >> These 3 are the same as F01 F02 and F=:F12. The advantage of the Fmn > >> variants is they allow binding either one of the first 2 UWVs it > >> "specializes" for, and the hook + modifier ars to create modifier trains. > >> > >> > >> The less useful "native" modifer fork forming trains. > >> > >> CVV -> (uCv)VV NB. [:VV would allow uCv to be passed with user choice > >> of C. Still useful if C genuinely "wants to be" fixed. > >> VVC -> mirror of above that could just be CV~V > >> > >> W 'C' aar F0 U reproduces the first one. or > >> > >> +/ -'@' aar F % F # NB. native with @ given requires ([. ([. @ ].) ].) > >> > >> +/ -@% # > >> > >> +/ -([. ([. @ ].) ].) % # NB. cool that this works. > >> > >> +/ -@% # > >> > >> The F0 F1 F2 F01 F02 F12 compound modifiers provide less typing and > >> more flexibility (`:6 is J superpower) than the native fork forming > >> modifiers. But, if you don't want to learn them then the native > >> versions are self documenting if you understand them. ie. named > >> functions you are unfamiliar with always means looking them up (and > >> then understanding them) > >> > >> > >> On Sunday, December 19, 2021, 10:16:13 p.m. EST, Raul Miller > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> For most purposes, zero fork constructing words are necessary. And, > >> > >> UW2V=: {{)c > >> {{)c > >> v=. {{ > >> 0!:0'u=.',m > >> u > >> }} > >> u (0{::n)v (1{::n)v > >> }}((5!:5<'u');5!:5<'v') > >> }} > >> > >> should be adequate for most of the examples where a fork producing > >> word is necessary. > >> > >> But, personally, I don't do these things because they are necessary. I > >> do them for fun. > >> > >> $ ;UW2V , > >> $ ; , > >> > >> Hopefully it's obvious that I could have gotten the same result with > >> $ ; , > >> $ ; , > >> > >> That said, note that if instead of the 9!:3]5 which I have in my > >> profile.ijs, I used some other verb display form, that that result > >> would display different: > >> > >> 9!:3]1 > >> > >> $ ; , > >> +-----------+ > >> |+-+-------+| > >> ||3|+-+-+-+|| > >> || ||$|;|,||| > >> || |+-+-+-+|| > >> |+-+-------+| > >> +-----------+ > >> 9!:3]4 > >> > >> $ ; , > >> +- $ > >> --+- ; > >> +- , > >> > >> I would say "of course", but I don't know how a beginner would know > >> about this mechanism if they were not treated to a suggestion to try > >> it. > >> > >> Still, I am fond of > >> 9!:3]5 > >> > >> Anyway, back to the topic... we can do: > >> > >> ex1=: ;UW2V , > >> ex2=: ,(;UW2V) > >> > >> $ ex1 > >> $ ; , > >> $ ex2 > >> $ ; , > >> > >> And presumably there's some use for having the ability to carry around > >> a partially constructed fork. > >> > >> But is UW2V automatically superior to UWV1? (Defined earlier today: > >> http://jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2021-December/059410.html#) > >> > >> ex3=: ; , UWV1 > >> $ ex3 > >> $ ; , > >> > >> The construction of ex2 and ex3 are only superficially similar, since > >> ex2 needs a set of parenthesis. And, on these forums, elimination of > >> parenthesis has often been declared to be a highly important issue. > >> > >> So... there's that... > >> > >> ------------------------------ > >> > >> Finally, I should correct a statement I had made previously: > >> > >> This was wrong: "If you use parentheses, U W UW2V V would be > >> equivalent to V (U W UW2V)." > >> > >> This turns out to be false. In older versions of J (if an > >> implementation of UW2V had been written in that style), this would > >> have been equivalent to (U W) UW2V V. But in J903, (U W UW2V) is a > >> conjunction, not an adverb. And, using that conjunction results in a > >> syntax error. I haven't worked through the details yet, of why this > >> happens. > >> > >> 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 > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > > > > > -- > ---------------------- > mail written using NEO > neo-layout.org > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
