C V and V C too. V A and N A are valid but matched on a different line. hhr
> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Henry Rich > Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 1:29 PM > To: 'Programming forum' > Subject: RE: [Jprogramming] Parsing conjunctions > > N V V is a fork, processed as if it were (N"_ V V) . > > A A, N C, C N, and V V are all valid hooks. The others like > C C are not (they were, back in the Golden Age), and maybe > the Dictionary should be emended to change that line or > add an explanation that not all combinations have valid syntax. > > Henry Rich > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of p j > > Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 1:11 PM > > To: Programming forum > > Subject: RE: [Jprogramming] Parsing conjunctions > > > > 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 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see > http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
