blah... this form is not always the same :( u c y -: u (c y) the same example we described earlier makes it fail.
u c y m c2 n... would break the verb phrase bound to c2 if (c y) is paren'd. However, I can't think of anything that would break with: s1 u c y s2 -: s1 (u) c (y) s2 --- "Miller, Raul D" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > p j wrote: > > Earlier I had asked if > > u c y -: (u c y) > > I guess we found an example where that fails. > > If u c y does not appear in isolation, all bets are > off. > > Then again, perhaps I should have objected because > -: is > a J syntactic word and u c y -: (u c y) is not a > valid > use of J syntax. > > > Is there a sentence with a partial sentence u c y, > > where the following would not be the case? > > u c y -: (u) (c y) > > I'm going to have to ask you what you really mean by > that. > > On the face of it, the proposition is invalid. > > -- > Raul > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
