Putnam: Meaning and Reference [Rigo Acevedo]

I agree with Putnam's sociolinguistic hypothesis about the existence of a division of linguistic labor within our society; there does appear to be a difference in the  types, and details, of empirical descriptions that are held about particular objects within social groups. In this respect it seems impossible to identify words through meanings that are dependent upon characteristics that may not be universally known by the population. How can someone denote to a glass of water sitting on the table when they do not have an understanding of the meaning or sense of what water is; so it only seems reasonable that this method of describing how names function is inaccurate. 

Putnam believes that natural-kind words (like names) are indexical; If I were to make a statement about "water" I may be making a statement similar to the water around here (pg 710). I feel like this interpretation might be hard to apply to non-existent entities or fictional characters; a reference to a fictional entity does not seem to be dependent on context. If I were to say Harry Potter, would I be saying something similar to the Harry Potter around here/by here/near here/at this time?

So, my question relates to my confusion about how non-existent entities are considered. Can I make references to non-existent entities, and are the names of these non-existent entities indexical as well?