From lojbab@lojban.org Tue Feb 22 08:34:15 2000 X-Digest-Num: 372 Message-ID: <44114.372.2059.959273826@eGroups.com> Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 11:34:15 -0500 From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" Subject: Re: Digest Number 370 X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 2059 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!)