Jerry C., List: A follow-up question occurred to me.
JLRC: The differences that makes a difference in these three sentences are semes at the end that are very meaningful. If punctuation marks were Semes, what would be their Objects for which they serve as substitutes in accordance with Peirce's definition? I tentatively suggest that they are instead part of the *continuous predicate* of the corresponding Proposition--which is *not *a Seme itself, but rather a *relation *among Semes--and thus belong to its Immediate Interpretant, which is why they are indeed "very meaningful." This would entail that the *same *Type can have *different *Immediate Interpretants, in accordance with the different Tones that its individual Instances *possibly could* embody. Thanks, Jon S. On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 4:09 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > Jerry C., List: > > JLRC: These three sentence have three different meaning if one takes the > propositional logic of punctuation seriously. > > > I agree, as three different Tokens they produce three different *Dynamic > *Interpretants; > yet Peirce clearly affirmed that they are all the same proposition, the > same Sign, and thus presumably have the same *Final *Interpretant. Do > they have three different *Immediate *Interpretants? Are they three > different Instances of the same Type, or single Instances of three > different Types? > > JAS: I trust that the reader can imagine how these three sentences would > also sound quite different when spoken, rather than written. > > JLRC: Certainly not this reader! > > > Really? If you were to read them aloud, there would be no difference at > all in how you spoke each sentence? > > JLRC: The differences that makes a difference in these three sentences > are semes at the end that are very meaningful. > > > Again, at the moment I am tentatively inclined to treat those punctuation > marks as different Tones that accompany three different Instances of the > same Type, rather than additional Semes that make them three different > Types. However, I am open to being persuaded otherwise. > > JLRC: The meanings of the spoken forms depends on the context of the > entire situation, especially the tone of voice and interpersonal > relationships so it is hardly relevant to the semiotic interpretations of > the alphabetic forms. > > > I agree, which is one reason why I believe that the spoken forms are > different Types of the same Sign. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 3:25 PM Jerry LR Chandler < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> List, Jon >> >> On Jan 25, 2019, at 1:47 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> How should we characterize these various ways of uttering the same >> Proposition? For example ... >> >> - We are going to the restaurant. >> - We are going to the restaurant? >> - We are going to the restaurant! >> >> These three sentence have three different meaning if one takes the >> propositional logic of punctuation seriously. >> >> The only change here is the punctuation at the end, but I trust that the >> reader can imagine how these three sentences would also *sound *quite >> different when spoken, rather than written. >> >> Certainly not this reader! >> >> The differences that makes a difference in these three sentences are >> semes at the end that are very meaningful. The meanings of the spoken forms >> depends on the context of the entire situation, especially the tone of >> voice and interpersonal relationships so it is hardly relevant to the >> semiotic interpretations of the alphabetic forms. >> >> 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] . 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 .
