From sentto-44114-2058-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Tue Feb 22 16:31:31 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: shoulson-kli@meson.org Received: (qmail 12393 invoked from network); 22 Feb 2000 16:31:30 -0000 Received: from zash.lupine.org (205.186.156.18) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 22 Feb 2000 16:31:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 3622 invoked by uid 40001); 22 Feb 2000 16:34:42 -0000 Delivered-To: kli-mark@kli.org Received: (qmail 3619 invoked from network); 22 Feb 2000 16:34:40 -0000 Received: from ej.egroups.com (208.48.218.19) by zash.lupine.org with SMTP; 22 Feb 2000 16:34:40 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-2058-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.10.37] by ej.egroups.com with NNFMP; 22 Feb 2000 16:34:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 18215 invoked from network); 22 Feb 2000 16:34:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Feb 2000 16:34:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy.cais.net) (199.0.216.101) by mta2.onelist.org with SMTP; 22 Feb 2000 16:34:23 -0000 Received: from bob (209-8-89-152.dynamic.cais.com [209.8.89.152] (may be forged)) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA10859 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 11:33:44 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000222112643.00b1b160@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: lojban@onelist.com In-Reply-To: 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: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 11:34:15 -0500 X-eGroups-From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" Subject: Re: [lojban] Digest Number 370 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" At 10:56 PM 02/21/2000 -0500, BestATN@aol.com wrote: >From: BestATN@aol.com > >In a message dated 2/21/2000 5:27:54 AM Eastern Standard Time, >lojban@onelist.com writes: > > > can {kanro} be used for machines? > > > > Well, computers can have viruses, so why not? > >they are viruses in natlang, but of course a person can't get catch a >computer virus the way he can a cold virus. is kanro really that broadly >defined? A person cannot catch a lot of animal viruses either. In this case, I think we are seeing a linguistic metaphor that transfers rather aptly to computers. Lojban does not restrict metaphorical meaning transfer so long as the place structure fits the metaphor. 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. 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!) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ WANT FREE MAGAZINES? Sample over 500 magazines in 30 categories-- all for FREE at FreeShop.com, your source for thousands of free and trial offers! http://click.egroups.com/1/1610/1/_/17627/_/951237264/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com