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

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

>{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