John S.: Thanks. We have discussed Mark vs. Tone previously, so I will not rehash that. However, I think that Qualisign/Sinsign/Legisign is more appropriate when using only these three trichotomies, consistent with Peirce's 1903 taxonomy; the later terminology should be reserved for the later classifications that included up to ten trichotomies. Just curious, why do you prefer Predicate and Proposition to the more general Rheme and Dicisign? For that matter, why not Term rather than Predicate, since a Subject would presumably also be assigned to that box? In fact, it is at least arguable that Subject is more appropriate than Predicate, based on Peirce's suggestion that we can analyze a proposition by "throwing everything into the subject" to leave only a "continuous predicate."
Jerry C.: Sheriff's similar table would indeed seem to qualify as another (and earlier) "complete schema for addressing all nine terms of the triple triad in a coherent narrative." Do you agree? If not, why not? Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 8:33 PM John F Sowa <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10/31/2018 3:34 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: > > to get to me. I will ask again--could you (or John himself) > > please post an image of Figure 6.14, > > See the attached signs.jpg. > > This is the version from http://jfsowa.com/pubs/signs.pdf > > But fig 6.14 in the KR book (2000), the term in the lower left was > Rheme. In the article signs.pdf, I replaced 'Rheme' with 'Predicate'. > > 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 .
