From zachmay@hotmail.com Wed Feb 23 15:02:46 2000
X-Digest-Num: 373
Message-ID: <44114.373.2063.959273826@eGroups.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 18:02:46 -0500
From: "Zach May" <zachmay@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Digest Number 372

>
> 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.
>

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? :)

-Zach