Yes, I agree with your statement, except that the
way I read the first sentence of dictf.htm, trains must be
an *isolated* sequence. Therefore I do not think it is clear
to refer to the conjunction-verb sequence as a train, but
only as a sequence, for example.
Thinking back to the era when the many other trains
(sequences?) were defined in J and then were removed, I now
wonder if they were time-consuming and awkward to manage
because they did not have to be isolated sequences. I am not
suggesting that requiring isolation would be desirable, but
wonder whether in cases when they arre isolated, would it be
practical to reintroduce their functionality to J? I have no
idea if this would work or be desirable, but I do miss them.
(Btw, my earlier examples should not have included
the word "each" immediately to the left of x.)
On Thu, 17 May 2007, Roger Hui wrote:
+ The phrase {&.> in (<3 1 1 2) {&.> ,.each x
+ is not a train because it obeys one of the
+ "normal" parsing rules (4 Conj). The phrase &.>
+ in (<3 1 1 2) {(&.>) ,.each x is a train;
+ the parsing of this second sentence requires
+ one of the special parsing rules (5 Trident or
+ 6 Bident).
+
+
+
+ ----- Original Message -----
+ From: Brian Schott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
+ Date: Thursday, May 17, 2007 9:59 pm
+ Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] getting nouns when I seek verbs, etc.
+
+ > Consider the example below taken from your fine
+ > essay:
+ > http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/Essays/Inverted_Table#grade_and_sort
+ > The train &.> works whether it is "isolated" or *not* but
+ > verb trains need to be isolated. Right?
+ >
+ > (<3 1 1 2) {&.> ,.each x
+ > +------+-------+-+--+----+
+ > |Wilson|Diana |1|23|1.25|
+ > |Jones |Dakota |1|29|0.97|
+ > |Jones |Dakota |1|29|0.97|
+ > |Chan |Wilson |0|47|2.11|
+ > +------+-------+-+--+----+
+ > (<3 1 1 2) {(&.>) ,.each x
+ > +------+-------+-+--+----+
+ > |Wilson|Diana |1|23|1.25|
+ > |Jones |Dakota |1|29|0.97|
+ > |Jones |Dakota |1|29|0.97|
+ > |Chan |Wilson |0|47|2.11|
+ > +------+-------+-+--+----+
+ >
+ > On Thu, 17 May 2007, Roger Hui wrote:
+ >
+ > + The observation in the last paragraph is incorrect.
+ > + A train is an isolated sequence, whether the
+ > + train is a sequence of verbs or adverbs and
+ > + conjunctions. This derives from a straightforward
+ > + reading of Section II f of the dictionary.
+ > +
+ > +
+ > +
+ > + ----- Original Message -----
+ > + From: Brian Schott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
+ > + Date: Thursday, May 17, 2007 2:30 pm
+ > + Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] getting nouns when I seek verbs, etc.
+ > +
+ > + >
+ > + > Changing the subject slightly, and addressing mostly
+ > + > seasoned J users, another observation I made while viewing
+ > + > this Dictionary page is that only the verb trains, not the
+ > + > adverb or conjunction-noun or conjunction-verb trains,
+ > + > require "An isolated sequence" to be recognized by the J
+ > + > parser. That seems to be a distinction that I have not
+ > + > previously noticed, but employed often. Perhaps that subtle
+ > + > non-requirement would be a good addition to this Dictionary
+ > + > page.
+ ----------------------------------------------------------------------
+ For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
+
(B=) <----------my "sig"
Brian Schott
Atlanta, GA, USA
schott DOT bee are eye eh en AT gee em ae eye el DOT com
http://schott.selfip.net/~brian/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
