From lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Wed Apr 10 22:00:46 1996
Received: from punt3.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP
	id AA11299 ; Wed, 10 Apr 96 22:00:43 BST
Received: from punt-3.mail.demon.net by mailstore for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk
          id 829161264:16446:0; Wed, 10 Apr 96 19:34:24 BST
Received: from relay-1.mail.demon.net ([158.152.1.140]) by punt-3.mail.demon.net
          id aa15794; 10 Apr 96 19:33 +0100
Received: from cunyvm.cuny.edu ([128.228.1.2]) by relay-1.mail.demon.net
          id aa08788; 10 Apr 96 19:31 +0100
Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R3)
   with BSMTP id 4610; Wed, 10 Apr 96 14:24:48 EDT
Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with
 BSMTP id 8168; Wed, 10 Apr 96 14:24:21 EDT
Date:         Wed, 10 Apr 1996 14:23:52 -0400
Reply-To:     Logical Language Group <lojbab@access.digex.net>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@cunyvm.cuny.edu>
From:         Logical Language Group <lojbab@access.digex.net>
Subject:      *Re: {ti} (was: Re: *old response to And on fuzzy proposals)
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To:           Multiple recipients of list LOJBAN <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@cunyvm.cuny.edu>
Message-ID: <829161076.8788.0@cunyvm.cuny.edu>
Status: R


>From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
>Subject:      Re: {ti} (was: Re: *old response to And on fuzzy proposals)
>
>> >{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}.

Well, we specifically put in all these alternatives to deixis like
"di'u" and "dei" and "nei" "no'a" and "ri" (most of which could be seen
as a plausible referent for "ti" in a typical textual reference
pragmatics situation) for a reason.  You can coin examples where "ti" is
so limited that which of these is intended is unambiguous, but you can
just as easily coin examples where "ti" is highly ambiguous.

As a result - for this and many other situations where English idiom can
cause ambiguous results, we will be far better in teaching Lojban to
simply NOT teach "ti" ever to refer to a textual object.

lojbab