John, list,
I have been out of reach for more than a week. A heap of mails in this
thread. My responses may seem to many as ancient history. For that
reason I'll leave the comment responded below. And I'll try to be
concice.
No arguments on words and reference, however detailed, can possibly give
next to nothing towards making clear the crucial issue on the nature of
rel. betw. sign and meaning. (CSP of cource presupposed as the context).
Analytical (nominalistic) philosophy made the mistake of taking words
and reference as all there is to sings and meaning.
Do you agree?
Best, Kirsti
John F Sowa kirjoitti 22.12.2017 08:00:
Kirsti and Gary F,
K
Euclid introduced the word SEMEION, and defined it as that which
has no parts, and his followers started to that word instead of
the earlier STIGME .
GF
By the way, according to my sources, Aristotle used the word σημεῖον
for point before Euclid. [And from web site] According to the Liddell
and Scott lexicon, the word σημεῖον (the usual Greek word for sign
and root of semeiotic) was also used by Aristotle for a mathematical
point, or a point in time. In this sense it was synonymous with
στιγμή (stigma).
I checked Liddell & Scott, Chantraine's dictionnaire étymologique,
and Heath's translation and commentary on Euclid.
The base word is the verb 'stigo', which means to mark something;
for example, as a sign of ownership. From that, the word 'stigma'
(ending in alpha instead of eta) meant the mark caused by a pointed
instrument. The word 'stigme' originally meant a spot in a bird's
plumage; then it came to mean any spot, a small mark, or an instant.
Aristotle explicitly said that a point was a marker on a line,
not a part of the line. Heath said that Euclid generally followed
Aristotle. But in vol. 1, p. 156, he said that 'semeion' was
probably "considered more suitable than 'stigme' (a puncture)
which might claim to have more reality than a point."
In summary, all three words (stigma, stigme, and semeion) could refer
to a mark, but semeion is more abstract and general than the others.
K
Does a sign have parts? - How about meaning?
The word 'semeion' could be used to refer to any kind of mark.
Euclid used it for just one particular kind. For that use in
geometry, the thing it refers to has no parts.
K
the Romans & later Boethius changed it to PUNCTUM in their
commentaries.
I believe that it was good idea to have two distinct words:
'signum' for sign, and 'punctum' for point.
John
-----------------------------
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 .
