I confused the issue Don, and I'm sure you are right. I was asking about what I called "expositional tacit" expressions, which Roger explained relied on forks, which let me finally understand how the x and y arguments got applied to the verbs between the ";'s", which encouraged me to stick a bunch of constants between ";" verbs, which needed no x or y arguments ..., etc.
Hey, I don't pretend to use correct terminology; I just show up every now and then to flaunt my ignorance! > On Dec 9, 2019, at 5:25 PM, Don Guinn <[email protected]> wrote: > > If I may throw in my two cents worth. > > Tacit expressions are somewhat vague as to what they are. To over-simplify, > they are verb expressions missing noun arguments due to lack of noun > arguments in the statement or being enclosed in parentheses. Adverbs and > conjunctions have nothing to do with whether or not an expression is tacit. > They simply use verbs and nouns as their arguments which then result in new > verbs using the same rules for the modifier whether in a tacit expression > or not. > > In analyzing a statement one should first resolve how modifiers build new > verbs. Then once the verbs are determined determine if the noun arguments > are missing. If they are missing, look to the three tacit rules for verbs - > forks, hooks and trains. Otherwise, follow the normal right-to-left rule > for verb execution. > > Okay. Maybe one could consider the statement (+/1 2 3) as having the > expression (+/) tacit. I don't know. As I said earlier, tacit expressions > are somewhat vague. > >>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 2:05 PM Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: >> I don't really understand your questions -- and I'm also not sure how >> I feel about calling noun phrases "tacit expressions". >> That said, I think you might be asking about something related to this: >> (16#.15),(16#.35),(10#.35),(1#.35),(0#.35) >> 15 35 35 35 35 >> And, possibly, also, this: >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphabetical_order? >> But I'm not sure... that said... depending on where this needs to >> go... maybe we should take it to the [email protected] forum? >> Thanks, >> -- >> Raul >>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 3:55 PM 'Jim Russell' via General >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Having started to understand tacit expressions, I'll use one to >> illustrate what I found at the bottom of one: >>> (16bf;16bz;10bz;1bz;0bz) >>> +--+--+--+--+--+ >>> |15|35|35|35|35| >>> +--+--+--+--+--+ >>> Which raises another, why no A thru Z? >>> Or a third, originally mentioned by Robert G. Brown: >>> Why are so many things arraigned alphabetically, when there is >> absolutely no intrinsic order to the letters of the alphabet? (Is there >> anything else that needs a mumbled child's song to remember?) >>> (Speaking of RGB: Having lost touch, I checked Wikipedia; >>> Good news-he is listed, >>> Bad news -there is a link to his obituary, >>> Good news - there is a 404 not found error. >>> Anyone have recent news? >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
