John S., List: JFS: Unless anyone can find a later version, his 1908 choice of 'mark' must be considered definitive.
I am inclined to agree with Gary F. that this is a judgment call. In fact, given my current concern with emphasizing that (strictly speaking) every Sign is a Type, the fact that "mark" has an etymological sense overlapping with "sign" is actually an argument *against *using it when referring to the significant characters of Sign-Replicas. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 2:09 PM, John F Sowa <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary and Edwina, > > GF > >> I think it’s important to recognize your preference for “mark” >> over “tone” as a term in semiotics or ontology is a strictly >> personal preference (rather than a logical principle or a fact >> of Peircean usage). >> > > Peirce never changed his terminology without serious reasons. > He chose 'tone' in 1906. In 1908, he expressed concerns about > that choice. When he presented his final classification of > signs, he deliberately replaced 'tone' with 'mark'. > > GF > >> I don’t recall ever hearing “mark” as a reference to sound, touch, >> taste, or indeed any sensory modality other than the visual. >> > > The word 'mark' has a much broader range of senses than 'tone'. > For the definitions and examples of usage, compare the entries > for both words on the M-W site: https://www.merriam-webster.com/ > > For Peirce's definitions and examples, see the Century Dictionary. > He did not write a definition for 'tone'. For 'mark', note his > definition 4 and his choice of examples by Shakespeare, Milton, > and Kant. See the attached mark_4.jpg. > > Also note Peirce's comment immediately after the etymology of > 'mark' and before definition 1: > >> The sense 'boundary' is older as recorded, though the sense 'sign' >> seems logically precedent. The two groups may indeed be from >> entirely different groups. >> > > This discussion of etymology shows that Peirce considered the word > 'mark' to have two distinct "groups" of word senses. Whether his > speculation is correct is less important than the fact that he > considered the sense of 'sign' to be "logically precedent". > > It's also significant that Peirce chose to write the definition > of 'mark' and not the definition of 'tone'. Although his work on > the Century Dictionary was about two decades before he considered > the choice between 'tone' and 'mark', his definitions show his > background knowledge of the subject and his ways of thinking. > > For the record, note the definition of 'tone' in the Century > Dictionary. The range of senses and examples is much narrower > than 'mark' and quite similar to the entry in M-W. > > ET > >> It’s a fact that Peirce struggled with finding the best names for >> the concepts he was trying to communicate, and often changed his >> mind; and I think that is a more significant fact than the fact >> of which choice of name he might have made in his last change >> of mind." >> > > That's true. We have to look at all the evidence and the context > of each version. That's why we need conveniently searchable > transcriptions of *all* his MSS. > > But note that the word 'mark' in both the M-W and the Century > dictionaries has a closer overlap with 'sign' than 'tone' has. > According to Peirce's own criteria for choosing terms, that is > an important consideration. > > Also note that his classification of signs at the end of 1908 > is widely cited as definitive. After thinking and reviewing > all the issues, he chose 'mark' as the word to include in his > final classification. That is not a casual change of mind. > > I realize that more publications about Peirce use the word > 'tone' -- but that is primarily because his 1906 choice has > been cited and recited for decades. For his final and most > complete classification, his deliberate choice should have > very high priority. Unless anyone can find a later version, > his 1908 choice of 'mark' must be considered definitive. > > 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 .
