Received: from VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (vms.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.2]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id RAA13013 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 1996 17:36:55 -0500 Message-Id: <199602252236.RAA13013@locke.ccil.org> Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 28B56B84 ; Sun, 25 Feb 1996 16:59:58 -0500 Date: Sun, 25 Feb 1996 09:28:30 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: {ti} (was: Re: *old response to And on fuzzy proposals) X-To: ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 679 X-From-Space-Date: Mon Feb 26 10:38:09 1996 X-From-Space-Address: - >{dei} & co are more precise, but I don't see why {ti} can't point to an >utterance. How do you know what "ti" refers to. The reference is to whatever the speaker is indicating, and in printed text with no indicators, that is nothing. Even if one presumes it metalinguistic, why is it the sentence and not the word "ti". Only pragmatics can tell you that sentences are false more often than words. But in a sentence "ti xamgu", you have no such clue. >then {ti} could mean "this here thing proximate to >me as I write {ti}". Ah, in that case "ti jitfa" means that the room you are sitting in somewhere in the London area is false, right? makes little sense to me. lojbab