From sentto-44114-2064-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Thu Feb 24 05:39:46 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: shoulson-kli@meson.org Received: (qmail 15067 invoked from network); 24 Feb 2000 05:39:44 -0000 Received: from zash.lupine.org (205.186.156.18) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 24 Feb 2000 05:39:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 20431 invoked by uid 40001); 24 Feb 2000 05:43:05 -0000 Delivered-To: kli-mark@kli.org Received: (qmail 20428 invoked from network); 24 Feb 2000 05:43:04 -0000 Received: from hk.egroups.com (208.48.218.13) by zash.lupine.org with SMTP; 24 Feb 2000 05:43:04 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-2064-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.10.35] by hk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 24 Feb 2000 05:43:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 26115 invoked from network); 24 Feb 2000 05:42:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 24 Feb 2000 05:42:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fn1.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca) (198.161.206.8) by mta1.onelist.com with SMTP; 24 Feb 2000 05:42:59 -0000 Received: from freenet.edmonton.ab.ca (13496@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca [198.161.206.2]) by fn1.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id WAA22854 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 22:42:03 -0700 Received: from localhost (reciproc@localhost) by freenet.edmonton.ab.ca (8.8.7/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA26834 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 22:42:56 -0700 To: lojban@onelist.com In-Reply-To: <20000223233432.22841.qmail@hotmail.com> Message-ID: 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 22:42:55 -0700 (MST) X-eGroups-From: reciproc@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca From: reciproc@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca Subject: Re: [lojban] Digest Number 372 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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. co'omi'e xarmuj. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get what you deserve with NextCard Visa! Rates as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR, online balance transfers, Rewards Points, no hidden fees, and much more! Get NextCard today and get the credit youdeserve! Apply now! Get your NextCard Visa at: http://click.egroups.com/1/912/1/_/17627/_/951370979/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com