From sentto-44114-2062-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Wed Feb 23 23:36:28 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: shoulson-kli@meson.org Received: (qmail 14564 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2000 23:36:27 -0000 Received: from zash.lupine.org (205.186.156.18) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 23 Feb 2000 23:36:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 5598 invoked by uid 40001); 23 Feb 2000 23:39:45 -0000 Delivered-To: kli-mark@kli.org Received: (qmail 5595 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2000 23:39:42 -0000 Received: from hh.egroups.com (208.48.218.10) by zash.lupine.org with SMTP; 23 Feb 2000 23:39:42 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-2062-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.10.38] by hh.egroups.com with NNFMP; 23 Feb 2000 23:34:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 11699 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2000 23:34:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 23 Feb 2000 23:34:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (209.185.240.210) by mta2.onelist.org with SMTP; 23 Feb 2000 23:34:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 22842 invoked by uid 65534); 23 Feb 2000 23:34:32 -0000 Message-ID: <20000223233432.22841.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [206.157.148.131] To: References: <951302362.6696@onelist.com> X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 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: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 18:02:46 -0500 X-eGroups-From: "Zach May" From: "Zach May" Subject: Re: [lojban] Digest Number 372 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "Zach May" > > 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. > 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? :) -Zach ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shop the web for great deals. Save on Computers, electronics, Home furnishings and more. http://click.egroups.com/1/1559/1/_/17627/_/951348873/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com