{ti} (was: Re: *old response to And on fuzzy proposals)

[ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>]

> >> >> "sei ti jitfa" embedded in a sentence (this sentence is a lie).
> >> >where {ti} refers to {dei}, I presume.
> >> Correct. "ti" was wrong, not sloppy in the sei statement.
> >I think calling it "wrong" is a bit extreme. Misleading, maybe. Glico,
> >yes. Malglico, maybe.
> "ti" is wrong in any printed text without some overt deitic pointer
> like a pretty graphic arrow (omitting of course the degenerate case
> of "ti" being quoted, in which case one need not expect the deitic
> reference to be identified.  "dei" and "di'u" and "ri" and probably a
> few other words were added to Loglan/Lojban specifically to rid the ir
> meanings from "ti".

{dei} & co are more precise, but I don't see why {ti} can't point to an
utterance. (Of course, if you could use {dei} then why use {ti}, but
that's not the issue.) Further, the relationship between deixis and
writing is rather messy. If {ca} can mean "at the time when {ca} was
coa written down" then {ti} could mean "this here thing proximate to
me as I write {ti}".
i coo i mie and