From reciproc@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca Wed Feb 23 21:42:55 2000
X-Digest-Num: 373
Message-ID: <44114.373.2065.959273826@eGroups.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 22:42:55 -0700 (MST)
From: reciproc@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Subject: Re: Digest Number 372
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 2065

> > 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.