[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Digest Number 370



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!)