My proposal for (C V C) is (C V) C which matches the A C train I agree with. End result is u (C V) C v which is equivalent to either u C V C v, or (u C V) C v or u (C V) (C v)
On Monday, September 27, 2021, 05:59:20 p.m. EDT, Elijah Stone <[email protected]> wrote: On Mon, 27 Sep 2021, 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming wrote: > (C V C) conj -> (u C V C v) ie. interpreted the same way as if terms had > been written inline This is not how any other train is interpreted (except for pure adverb trains); forks are already there, and in particular N V V forks, so it would be inconsistent to behave otherwise here. -E ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
