List, Gary…. > On Jul 5, 2018, at 9:30 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > Jerry, > > Peirce always insisted that the analysis of propositions or of their meanings > should not be based on linguistic grammar, i.e. on the ‘parts of speech’ > involved, because the linguistic structure of the sentences that represent > propositions varies from language to language, > ….always… ?
This is not my reading of CSP! The simple fact of the matter is that CSP wrote in sentences. And, I would suggest, that any sentence in any language has an intimate connection to the notion of meaning / rules of interpretation that are intrinsic to human communication. > and logic/semeiotic is aims for the deeper and more universal structural > principles that he called “speculative grammar.” > The adjective “speculative” is appended to the word “grammar”. Cheers Jerry > > > From: Jerry LR Chandler <[email protected]> > Sent: 5-Jul-18 09:59 > To: Peirce List <[email protected]> > Cc: Gary Fuhrman <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's late classification of signs > > List: >> On Jul 5, 2018, at 7:38 AM, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> In your other post, you wrote, “A Rheme not only must have at least one >> blank empty, but also at least one blank filled; it must have either breadth >> or depth, just not both.” I don’t know where you get this idea … A rheme >> with no empty blanks is called by Peirce a medad rheme (CP 2.272). Also, >> breadth of a term or rheme is not the filling of a blank, but the potential >> of a blank to be filled; and the filled blank would represent the breadth of >> a proposition, which must have both breadth and depth in order to convey >> information, and therefore be relevant to logical critic. > > > CP 2.272 is indeed critical. > > From the perspective of “meaning”, CP 2.272 represents the relationships > between the concept the structure of a sentence and the logical content of > it. Thus, CSP is maladroitly separating the words of a sentence into what he > believes are more important terms from terms of ???? (lesser important?). > The listing of the terms, medad, monad, dyad, triad, etc, lacks sentential > meaning to this reader because CSP fails to relate the medad, monad, dyad,… > to either the subject or predicate or prepositions, or adjectives, or > adverbs, etc., of the statement. > > In short, the fancy terms, medad, monad, dyad, triad,… simply say a sentence > may contain 0,1,2,3, or more proper names. > > What I find interesting in CP 2.272 is that one meaningful use of this queer > quasi- grammatical categorization is in the notion of parts of a whole which > was later developed into an important part of mathematical logic > (Lesniewski’s logic). > This is consistent with 3.420-421. > > On the positive note, the rheme appears to extend the earlier usage of > syncategorimata (sp?). > > Perhaps JAS would like to relate CP 2.272 AND 3.420-1 to his views of > meaningful information since any proper name could mean either breadth or > depth. depending on the grammar and context of the organization of the > proposition. > > Cheers > > Jerry > > ----------------------------- > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to > PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] <mailto:[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 > <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 .
