John S., List: JFS: I believe that it's essential to bring Peirce to the attention of *everybody* who uses signs.
I agree, and have struggled with how to do so myself. Gary R. has mentioned the difficulty of communicating the concept that "a sign is not a real thing," even to people who are fairly familiar with Peirce. JFS: I challenge anybody to find an example for which rheme and dicisign have a more general meaning than predicate and proposition. I provided one already--a rheme can be (and often is) a subject, rather than a predicate; and at the limit of logical analysis, *every *rheme is a subject, such that only the form of its relations to *other *rhemes is a (continuous) predicate. Strictly speaking, a proposition is a Dicent *Symbol*, but there are also Dicent *Indices *that are not propositions. JFS: No logician would ever use the words 'rheme' or 'dicisign' instead of 'predicate' and 'proposition'. Peirce was a logician, and he used those words. Logicians who write about Peirce today routinely use them, as well. I have no problem with employing predicates and propositions as familiar examples of Rhemes (or Semes) and Dicisigns (or Phemes), respectively; but treating the terms as synonymous is misleading. JFS: Linguists commonly use the words 'token' and 'type'. But do they mean the same thing as Sinsign and Legisign in Peirce's 1903 taxonomy? Do they recognize Tokens that *do not* embody Types--i.e., that are not individual Replicas of general Signs--as he did at that time? (Of course, I have been arguing recently for the controversial position that there are no such Tokens.) Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 2:10 PM John F Sowa <[email protected]> wrote: > On 11/1/2018 12:10 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: > > Just curious, why do you prefer Predicate and Proposition to the > > more general Rheme and Dicisign? > > There are two important audiences: > > 1. Peirce scholars who are doing the detailed textual analysis to > determine as exactly as possible what Peirce meant at every > stage of his career. > > 2. The rest of the world. > > I was not addressing Peirce scholars. Their work is important, > and I don't deny that. But they will get zero support (funding) > and attention (readers) unless and until the world is aware of > Peirce's work and its value. I believe that it's essential > to bring Peirce to the attention of *everybody* who uses signs. > > Even at APA conferences, discussions of Peirce are limited to sessions > that only Peirce scholars attend. One obstacle is Peirce's obscure > terminology -- for which the scholarly term is rebarbative. > > The words 'predicate' and 'proposition' are synonyms for 'rheme' > and 'dicisign' -- Peirce himself used them that way. I challenge > anybody to find an example for which rheme and dicisign have a > more general meaning than predicate and proposition. > > > I think that Qualisign/Sinsign/Legisign is more appropriate > > Those are fine words to use in an article addressed to Peirce > scholars. But the pair token/type is widely known and used > by people who have no idea where it comes from. Those people > are happy to hear that mark/token/type comes from Peirce, but > the word 'tone' seems to be too narrow. And you could never get > them to remember any one of the words Qualisign/Sinsign/Legisign. > > > 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? > > I certainly agree that Sheriff's 150-page book is a very good > introduction for anybody who wants to study Peirce's writings. > > But I wrote signs.pdf as a 12-page introduction for people who > need words to use in their own speaking and writing. > > No logician would ever use the words 'rheme' or 'dicisign' instead > of 'predicate' and 'proposition'. Linguists commonly use the words > 'token' and 'type'. They could be persuaded to adopt 'mark'. > But qualisign/sinsign/legisign doesn't have a prayer of a chance > of a snowball in hell. > > 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 .
