Just read that now. Very useful stuff. Thank you. A new mystery though...
EDGE+AVN VERB+NOUN VERB VERB 5 Trident (Fork) EDGE CAVN CAVN ANY 6 Bident (Hook/Adverb) (N V V) can be a fork? -- through testing I see that this makes what I thought should be called a dyadic hook. I presume the name doesn't matter so much, just that the pattern is parsed as something. For line 6, EDGE N N ANY -> syntax error EDGE C A ANY -> syntax error EDGE C C ANY -> syntax error and probably more.... (NV) is syntax error Does this pattern only really match? EDGE A A ANY -> adverb EDGE V V ANY -> hook --- Henry Rich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I did a decnt job of explaining this in J for C > Programmers, in > the chapters towards the end on Parsing. > > It turns out to be pretty hard to say what a verb > phrase is. > The only way I could come up with makes reference to > the > parsing rules. > > Henry Rich > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of p j > > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 9:43 PM > > To: Programming forum > > Subject: [Jprogramming] Parsing conjunctions > > > > (-: *:)@+: 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 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see > http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > __________________________________________________ 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
