From lojbab@lojban.org Sun Feb 20 12:13:18 2000 X-Digest-Num: 370 Message-ID: <44114.370.2051.959273826@eGroups.com> Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 15:13:18 -0500 From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" Subject: Re: Re: Translation needed X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 2051 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!)