[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Jordan: > 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. --And.