In a message dated 3/15/10 1:19:03 PM, [email protected] writes:
> The term "sign" should be held to stand for an "objective > relative" object that representatively stands for or signs some > other object in some signing way as related to a signer for some > signed purpose. > I strongly recommend that to become comprehensible Frances provide examples of the various entities she has in mind with 'sign', 'symbol', etc, and that she describe her notion of "representatively" and of "stands for". Evidently Frances believes in an action called "signing" that also needs to be elucidated. I also recommend that none of us listers assume that just because a notion comes to mind when we read one of these arcane words it must be sufficiently like the notion in Frances's mind. I have many times over the years seen listers wrestle uselessly because they didn't realize they unawaredly have different notions in mind for the same term. Frances: Did you mean 'objective CORRelative' in T.S. Eliot's sense?
