I am used to being ignored in general discussions so I will simply react with no need for response. We are apparently in a time of incremental expansion of knowledge. This makes it impossible any more to go with much but the now. It makes this sort of linguistic exercise a sort of game of statues. I am not sure if that is the right description. But I have longed for some sense that there could be conversation that recognizes the efforts of persons like me who have labored considerably to create a more general and universal understanding that will resonate with ordinary readers. I do not think Peirce needs any of us. He may be amused. I would like to be able to talk freely about without feeling I must somehow have it pass muster with whatever one might term the standard to be. The group seems to me to have shrunk but it might grow with a trifle more toleration of a wider way. amazon.com/author/stephenrose
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 11:16 AM John F Sowa <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon AS, > > > I suppose that I could invent my own word, but that would > > violate Peirce's ethics of terminology in the other direction, > > since he already created a suitable one--which happens to have > > the advantage of being the root of "semiosis" and "sem(e)iotic." > > In his article on the ethics of terminology, Peirce was proposing > guidelines for establishing stable terminology in any branch of > science. > > But he also said "symbols grow". He was well aware that the > terminology in any field evolves as new discoveries or inventions > extend or modify the meanings of the old terms. He also admitted > that his own meanings evolved over the years. For examples of > the evolution, look at the definitions in Commens. > > Re seme: Peirce used that word in only one article, and he did > not develop it further. Nobody else has adopted it for any > purpose other than to note that Peirce used it in CP 4.538. > > That means that the word 'seme' is obsolete. There is no ethical > obligation for anyone to use it. But the word 'predicate' is alive > and well in the same sense that Peirce used. > > If you want a term that is similar to 'predicate', but slightly > different, there is a standard *ethical* solution: Just put > an adjective X in front of the word 'predicate'. > > That would immediately tell the reader that an X predicate > is similar to a predicate, but qualified by X. In a footnote, > you could add "An X predicate is comparable to what Peirce > called a seme in CP 4.538." > > That solution is precise and intelligible to modern readers. > The footnote would give credit to Peirce for the inspiration. > And the word 'comparable' would answer critics who might quibble > with any claim that your definition is identical to whatever > Peirce had intended. > > That is more ethical than implying that you have a deeper > understanding of what Peirce intended than he had. > > 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 .
