From rlpowell@csclub.uwaterloo.ca Wed Feb 23 22:53:00 2000 X-Digest-Num: 373 Message-ID: <44114.373.2067.959273826@eGroups.com> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 01:53:00 -0500 From: Robin Lee Powell Subject: Re: Digest Number 372 >From: reciproc@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca > >> > Is this good or bad? I cannot say. But we can't stop it from happening, >> > so in that sense kanro is *potentially* that broadly defined if people use >> > it that way. >> > >> >> A virus is not just an organism, but a living thing. A computer virus, on >> the other hand, is just code. So, wouldn't it be possible to make some sort >> of compound word? >> >> I really don't know that much about Lojban, but couldn't it be formed by the >> combining forms of Computer + Virus? >> >> Or have I totally misunderstood the system? :) > >Well, on the one hand, you're right that it would be possible (and in most >cases desirable) to use a lujvo (samvidru). However, a "computer-virus" is >just a kind of virus, even if it's a metaphorical virus; "vidru" would >therefore have to include the sense of computer virus. >Lojban gismu are intentionally veeerrry broadly-defined. Note also that you will got lots of argument from biologists as to whether viruses are 'alive' or not, and that any definition of virus in English that does not specifically refer to DNA or cellular structure in pretty much guaranteed to match any computer virus point for point. For further ruminations on why 'a computer virus is just code' doesn't really hold water, look up The Tierra Project. -Robin -- http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rlpowell/ BTW, I'm male, honest. As a member of the Hans Solo School of Action Before Thought, Welcome, You've Got Male.