Henry wrote: > The Dictionary seems plain to me, & I agree with Raul. Are > we differing over the meaning of a convoluted English sentence?
I don't think so. At most we are differing over the definition of the word "proverb". I haven't had time yet to write up a complete response. But here's the synopsis: My original question was motivated by interpreting the DoJ as you have, and noting a discrepancy between that interprepation and the implementation. That is, you and I both believe the DoJ is plain, and clearly says that every name, except names of verbs (and names to the left of copulae), are resolved as they're stacked. I found an example where this specification was not honored, and wanted to know why, or what I was missing when reading the DoJ. [1] Victor and Raul's responses corroborated my own observation that all names, regardless of nameclass, are resolved when executed, but not before (in particular, not as they're stacked). I followed up to this response, asking if this corroborated behavior is supported by the text of the DoJ. Raul responded with an excerpt from the DoJ, noting that it supported the behavior (for a particular definition of the word "proverb"). Note that was the exact excerpt I'd already quoted, observing that it was in conflict with the resolved-when-executed behavior (understanding "proverb" to mean "a name refering to a verb"). Raul proposed the discrepancy could be resolved by understanding "proverb" to mean "name not referring to a noun". But, IMO, that's just reinterpreting the DoJ to agree with the implementation, rather than justifying the implementation wrt the DoJ (hence my "begging the question" comment). Now, Raul's proposal may be correct; "proverb", in this particular context, may mean non-noun-name (NNN). But IIRC the DoJ uses the word "proverb" elsewhere, in a sense not compatible with that definition (and I don't think we'd need the word "proverb" if it just meant NNN). I need to do a little research and cogitation before I can accept or reject the proposal. I intended to do that and write up my conclusions in response, but I haven't had time yet. -Dan [1] Ken was careful in defining, and Roger is correspondingly careful in implementing. The highest probability is still that the discrepancy exists in my head and not in J (either as described or implemented). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
