John,
If you maintain your opinion that -----Original Message----- From: John F Sowa [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 13-Jan-18 13:54 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] definitions and ethics of terminology On 1/13/2018 11:37 AM, <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] wrote: > I introduced the term “polyversity” and defined it in Chapter 2 of > /Turning Signs/, Before I sent that note, I had searched that web page for every occurrence of 'polyversity': <http://www.gnusystems.ca/TS/dlg.htm> http://www.gnusystems.ca/TS/dlg.htm That web page has seven occurrences of the word polyversity. Two occur in headings, and five occur in sentences: 1. "a meaning can have many words (polylogy)... Perhaps it would help to have one word for polysemy and polylogy. How about polyversity?" 2. "Maybe what i call polyversity is the same as what's called conceptual alternativity... (Talmy 2000, I.258)." 3. "But that's the whole point of polyversity: what appears at first to be a new concept, or a false one, can always turn out to be an old truth in a new (dis)guise" 4. "if my description of the world differs from yours, i can chalk it up to polyversity and not to your personal perversity." 5. "All humans, regardless of culture, and barring special disabilities, are equipped to learn some form of symbolic language – in all its glorious polyversity." The first one is the closest to a definition. I did not quote it because the one I quoted from your earlier note is clearer: >> I dealt with polysemy... by coining the word “polyversity” to include >> not only polysemy (the tendency of a word to have various meanings) >> but also the tendency of a meaning to be expressible in various >> linguistic signs. > > GF: That is not a definition, it’s a statement of my intention in > coining the word; and I told you in that post where to find the > definition. And as I showed in previous messages, your use was not > consistent with it. In my earlier note, I used the word polyversity according to that definition. You complained that I ignored your purpose for defining it. But no occurrence in that web page indicates that some purpose outside the definition constrains how the word may be used. > In Peirce’s terminological practice, he was quite careful to use terms > coined by others (such as Jeremy Bentham’s “cenoscopy”) only for the > concept they were coined to name. Clearly his ethics of terminology > obligated people in this way, and the last sentence of Rule #6 clearly > implies that obligation. I believe that I conformed to that obligation. I took the only definition I could find and followed it as precisely as I could. If I made a mistake, please quote whichever passage you claim is in error. Then show why you believe it's incorrect. 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 .
