(-: *:)@+: 2 0 -: *:@+: 2 8 -: (*:)@+: 2 8 +:@-: (*:)@+: 2 16 +:@-: *:@+: 2 16 +:@(-: *:@+:) 2 0 +:@-: (*:@+: 2) 16
>From the dictionary, conjunctions have as left argument "the entire verb phrase that precedes it." p=: 2 : 'u' +:@-: *:@+: p 1 +:@-: *:@+: That doesn't mean very much, because the relationship of the entire verb phrase is dependent upon the single word (or paren'd entity) that is to the left of the conjunction. +:@-: 2 + *:@+: 2 18 +:@-: 2 + (*:@+:) 2 18 >From the above examples, it looks a lot like you could think of conjunctions as binding with the word on its left (which will then be processed by the rest of the sentence) Amazingly, +:@-: *:@(+: p 1) +:@-: *:@+: +:@-: 2 + p + + +:@-: (2 + +) +:@-: 2 (+ p +) + +:@-: (2 + +) Can you say that for any conjunction c, sentences s and words w: s3 (s2)c(s1) -: s3 ((s2)c(s1)) s3 w2 c w1 -: s3 (w2 c w1) I'm very surprised that there seems no way to limit the left argument to a conjunction by parenthesising. Here's another example that better illustrates the concept that conjunctions really left-bind with one word: -/ +/"(0) 3 2 3 4 -/"0 +/"(0) 3 2 3 3 2 3 (shouldn't rank be setting all verbs on the left side?) what semantics make that meaningful? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
