Ben, List:
Thanks for your views on the Latin roots CSP used to generate this term.
Subconsciously, I was associating "dicisign" with the concept of decision.
>From the perspective of the roots, then, the decisign is a term describing a
>human artifact, that is, a judgment about the interpretations of the sinsigns.
> At least, that is how I now understand the term.
Cheers
jerry
On Oct 12, 2014, at 10:44 PM, Benjamin Udell wrote:
> Jerry, list,
>
> Peirce does not use "decisign" with an 'e' in any of the texts in Collected
> Papers, Writings, or Contributions to _The Nation_.
>
> He uses 'dicisign' and 'dicent sign', and does so with the same meaning. The
> origin in the Latin verb _dicere_ ('to say', 'to tell') is pretty evident to
> any Latinist. _Dico, dicere, dixi, dictus_ are the principle parts of the
> verb. From it come French and Italian _dire_, Spanish _decir_, Portuguese
> _dizer_, English 'diction', etc.
> 1. The word 'dicent' is pretty plainly from the Latin _dicere_'s present
> participle _dicens, dicentis_.
>
> 2. 'Sign' is a word from Latin _signum_, and Peirce is not the kind readily
> to combine a Latin root with a root from some other language. So the 'dici'
> in 'dicisign' is almost certainly from _dicere_.
> 3. The first and second points converge to the same conclusion.
> Best, Ben
> On 10/12/2014 11:10 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote:
>
>> Frederik:
>>
>> The origen of the root of the term "decisign" is of substantial interest to
>> me.
>>> "Dicisign" refers to the latin verb "dico" - I say - chosen, I think, to
>>> underline that Dicisigns are signs that say something about something.
>>
>>
>> My limited search yielded nothing.
>>
>> Could you expand on your beliefs about this interpretation?
>>
>> Does anayone else use a different root term for this "ill-defined" concept?
>>
>> (It is of critical importance from a chemical perspective of the logic of
>> the triadic triad in relation to the S.O.P. of chemical methodology for
>> "proof of structure" and logical closure.)
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Jerry
>>
>>
>> On Oct 11, 2014, at 1:58 PM, Frederik Stjernfelt wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Jerry, lists -
>>>
>>> I think you are right chemistry played a central role in Peirce's dicisign
>>> conception. He saw both the predicate part and the subject parts as atoms
>>> with valencies which fit each other when forming the molecule of the
>>> dicisign. He even compared the two with halogens and alkali metals in the
>>> periodic table of the elements (corresponding, of course, to one-slot
>>> predicates only) - I quote this in Natural Propositions.
>>> As to the wording, you write "decisigns" - I have never seen that spelling
>>> but it would not surprise me to find it in P's unpublished pages.
>>> "Dicisigns" is one among several terminological proposals for the naming of
>>> generalized propositions - others include Dicent Signs and Phemes.
>>> "Dicisign" refers to the latin verb "dico" - I say - chosen, I think, to
>>> underline that Dicisigns are signs that say something about something.
>>>
>>> Best
>>> F
>>>
>>> Den 01/10/2014 kl. 19.04 skrev Gary Richmond <[email protected]>
>
> -----------------------------
> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected]
> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected]
> with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
> http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
>
>
>
>
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
