[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Sun, 15 Dec 2002, Jordan DeLong wrote: > On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 03:30:44AM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote: > > On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, Jordan DeLong wrote: > > > On Sat, Dec 14, 2002 at 06:17:36PM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote: > > > > On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, And Rosta wrote: > > > > > > > > (Any usage which does is incorrect, and should probably be using > > > > > > > > ti/ta/tu). The difference between da and ko'a is the same as between le > > > > > > > > and lo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > See chapter 7;3 to see why ti is unusable > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't see what you're complaining about... > > > > > > > > > > Without checking the book, I am guessing that the objection to your > > > > > use of ti is based on mabla anti-malglico tradition -- in this > > > > > instance, the notion that ti with a textual referent is insufficiently > > > > > deictic. > > > > > > > > Book says explicitly that ti is only used for finger pointables; I need > > > > something abstract. > > > > > > Not sure what you mean by "something abstract". But it's usable > > > for anything which has distance from the speaker (conceptually). > > > The book goes out of its way to say that you don't need to be > > > face-to-face for this to work. All the "finger pointing" stuff is > > > just a metaphor. > > > > "...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. -- jipno se kerlo re mei re mei degji kakne