Re: Re: Translation needed

["Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <lojbab@lojban.org>]

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!)