Message-Id: <199602262320.SAA18341@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Mon, 26 Feb 1996 06:39:06 +0000
Reply-To: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: {ti} (was: Re: *old response to And on fuzzy proposals)
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: U
Content-Length: 1010

> >{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.

It has to be something proximate to the word {ti}. Within that constraint,
reference is established in the usual way. But I appear to be taking too
broad a view of the meaning of {ti}.

> The reference is to whatever the speaker is indicating, and in printed
> text with no indicators, that is nothing.

Not so. The speaker could be indicating something. I suppose you want
some more rigorous formulation - "the speaker guarantees to the addressee
that the addressee can perceive the speaker's indication of something"
- something like that.

> >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.

Why do you want to say a room is false? Surely a hearer would surmise
that {ti} refers to an utterance.

coo, mie and