Relation syntax: Past participle?

What is wrong with this?

[code]Adhesion relates various things to various things.

The verb to stick with (he sticks to, they stick to, he stuck to, it is stuck to, he is sticking to) implies the adhesion relation.

test is a room.

When play begins: If something is stuck to something, say “stuck!”[/code]

Did I get something wrong with the verb conjugation?

It works if I say “if something sticks to something,” but I thought the past participle implied the reversed relation and was equally usable.

Oh wait, I figured it out. I’ve almost asked this question before, and remembered at the last minute. You have to say “is stuck to by”, not “is stuck to.” Is there any way to give the author a hint about this before they go insane?

The verb is “stick to”, not “to be stuck to”. Don’t use “is”.

Also, you have “with” in the infinitive and “to” in the others. That’s bound to cause confusion eventually.

I would just use the verb to be stuck to here. Inform already knows how to conjugate that and you won’t run into any strange cases like this.

That’s exactly what I did.

That’s how I changed it at first. But I like being able to write grammatical conditions that don’t use the word “that,” and when the direction of the relation doesn’t matter, using the passive voice can make that look better. Is it possible to use the present participle instead of the simple present?

e.g. does this:

things that stick to the hoojab

equal this?

things sticking to the hoojab

That was a typo. I copied and pasted from the extension I’m working on, intending to change “with” to “to” in all cases, but I missed one.