[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Digest Number 370
- Subject: Re: Digest Number 370
- From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <lojbab@lojban.org>
- Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 11:34:15 -0500
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!)