[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xod:
> On Mon, 16 Dec 2002, And Rosta wrote:
>
> > 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"
> >
>
>
> Huh? It probably should be my reading. Jordan is the one who, while he
> admits that ti can't point to abstract things, nonetheless insists that
> the distance or direction invoked can be "conceptual" (his word from post
> 1113). Therefore, I suppose that if his mother came to visit me, I would
> still refer to her as ta, when talking to him on the phone, because after
> all, she's conceptually closer to him than me, wherever she is physically
>
> I, on the other hand, take ti literally. It refers to physical objects and
> physical distances relative to speaker and listeners. Originally mentioned
> in the context of possible cmavo for a variable that can take its meaning
> from its bridi position (the way da does) without needing to be bound
> explicitly the way ko'a does (according to some people), I reject it
> because of its limited, physical nature. (If it wasn't being suggested for
> the role, why else would it have been mentioned in a discussion explicitly
> seeking a variable cmavo with certain qualifications?)
>
> You seem to be agreeing with him, or at least in a more conservative
> interpretation, using ti to override di'u/de'u
Let me skip over trying to untangle who thinks what.
I think that ti should mean the same in speech as in writing.
Either in both cases it should involve pointing to something
near the speaker or near dei, or it should mean "le vi du",
where proximity is measured textually or conceptually as well
as spatially. Personally I prefer the strictly pointing reading,
because "le vi du" is available for the other.
The uncertainty over writing would be whether the speaker is
pointing to something in their environment while writing (which
would be weird, because the reader can't see it) or pointing to
something on the page (less weird -- e.g. {ti pixra lo'e mi mamta}
as a caption).
--And.