From sentto-44114-2050-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Sun Feb 20 20:39:23 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: shoulson-kli@meson.org Received: (qmail 9060 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2000 20:39:22 -0000 Received: from zash.lupine.org (205.186.156.18) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 20 Feb 2000 20:39:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 8712 invoked by uid 40001); 20 Feb 2000 20:42:28 -0000 Delivered-To: kli-mark@kli.org Received: (qmail 8709 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2000 20:42:27 -0000 Received: from hm.egroups.com (208.48.218.15) by zash.lupine.org with SMTP; 20 Feb 2000 20:42:27 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-2050-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.10.38] by hm.egroups.com with NNFMP; 20 Feb 2000 20:42:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 17381 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2000 20:13:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 20 Feb 2000 20:13:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy.cais.net) (199.0.216.101) by mta2.onelist.org with SMTP; 20 Feb 2000 20:13:26 -0000 Received: from bob (dynamic215.cais.com [207.226.56.215]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA26437; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 15:12:45 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000220150752.00b50ab0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: vir1036/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 To: "Jorge Llambias" , lojban@onelist.com In-Reply-To: <20000220154521.68657.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@onelist.com; contact lojban-owner@onelist.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@onelist.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 15:13:18 -0500 X-eGroups-From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Translation needed Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" At 07:45 AM 02/20/2000 -0800, Jorge Llambias wrote: > > > I don't know whether spofu/nalspofu/tolspofu can be used > > > for people as well as for machines, but I don't see why > > > not. "zukte" has the additional burden of intention, > > > which I didn't think was there in "function at even a basic > > > level". > > > >You could always use 'gasnu'. I thought that 'function' referring to > >people implied some kind of intention, but maybe not. > >I may be misunderstanding the English. I interpreted >"function at even a basic level" as things like being >able to walk, stay awake, mainly physiological well being, >the body-machine in working order. Does it mean more than that? I agree with you Jorge (unusual?). Something is broken if it cannot do something it was designed/built to do because of malfunction (broad sense of design, as in according to our genetic code). > >spofu/tolspofu, OTOH, implies that the x1 is merely a tool and not > >and agent, and I think that 'function' definitely implies that the > >functioner is somehow an agent. > >I interpret it as "in working order/capable of fullfilling >its functions", basically very similar to "healthy" when >referring to people. > >A related question, can {kanro} be used for machines? Well, computers can have viruses, so why not? kanro on the other hand is more of a fuzzy logic state than spofu. You might have a virus but still be quite able to function in any and all necessary ways. lojbab ---- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org (newly updated!) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shabang!com is the place to get your FREE eStore, Absolutely FREE Forever. If you have any desires to sell your products or services online, or you want to expand your customer base for FREE, Come check out Shabang!com FREE eStores! http://click.egroups.com/1/1299/1/_/17627/_/951079337/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com