I'll add that while I completely understand the original choice to elide
subscripts, I will argue for them anyway. I have an article in the dustbin on
the relationship between verb rank and noun rank, which used both subscripts
and ellipses, because I found them didactically valuable; I think the result
was clearer with them than without, even though j-as-mathematical-notation is
perfectly capable of subsisting without them.
I think the use of ellipses in the refcard is telling. Ellipses are more
metanotational than subscripts, since a subscript has clear semantics--it is
just a funny way of supplying an argument to a function--whereas the meaning
of an ellipsis must be inferred in every context. So if ellipses are allowed,
there is no reason to exclude subscripts.
On Tue, 9 Aug 2022, Hauke Rehr wrote:
+1 for using subscripts, also in explanations of hooks and forks,
and in the Modifier Trains table
regarding footnotes b and c in the Scalar Dyadic Verbs table,
I read c as explaining the /inflection/, and b the attempt at
translating to known semantics in the middle column
So I don’t think it’s that inconsistent.
Am 09.08.22 um 23:28 schrieb Elijah Stone:
I would also use subscripts for 0, 1, and n.
--
----------------------
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
