I received an offline note from an author who has written books and papers about issues related to the recent discussions.
On the neglect of Peirce's writings by modern philosophers, the author wrote:
You're certainly right. The reason is probably Peirce's forbidding terminology and the serious amount of reading you have to invest in order to grasp what he was really achieving.
He also agreed about the approximate synonyms of seme/pheme/delome with rheme/dicisign/argument and term/proposition/argument. And he asked
did you see Bellucci's impressive Speculative Grammar book?
I admit that I hadn't. So I googled Francesco Bellucci, _Peirce's Speculative Grammar: Logic as Semiotic_, which was published in 2018. The excerpts in the Google book version are indeed impressive, and I would recommend the book to anyone who is interested in the issues discussed in the recent emails. I also used Google's search option for the word 'seme'. It found the passages from CP 4.538 ff, which Bellucci had quoted, and it found some cross-references to those passages. But there were no statements by Bellucci that contained the word 'seme'. 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 .
