RE: [jboske] ti (was: RE: kau

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>]

I wrote:
> Jordan:

xod, I mean

> > On Sun, 15 Dec 2002, Jordan DeLong wrote:
> > > > "...they cannot refer to things that cannot be pointed at."
> > >
> > > "In written text, on the other
> > > hand, the meaning of the ti-series is inherently vague; is the 
> writer to be
> > > taken as pointing to something, and if so, to what? In all cases, 
> > what counts
> > > as ``near'' and ``far away'' is relative to the current situation."
> > 
> > There is no way you can possibly misinterpret the above to mean that ti
> > can refer to unpointable things in the way that ko'a or da can 
> 
> It seems strange to me that "ti" should mean something different in
> writing than in speech. One can point in writing (e.g. with arrows),
> while if "ti" can point back to something nearby in the text
> in writing, I can't see why it shouldn't be able to do so in speech 
> 
> So your reading of CLL may be scripturally licensed, but is somewhat
> unfortunate 

That should be "Jordan's reading".

--And.