John S., List: JFS: Re seme: Peirce used that word in only one article, and he did not develop it further.
He used it in only one article *published *during his lifetime, but also in several other manuscripts--including at least one alternative draft of that same article (R 295), Sign taxonomies in his Logic Notebook (R 339) and elsewhere (R 795), and the December 1908 draft letters to Lady Welby (EP 2:481&490)--all of which Bellucci quotes in his book. The question remains whether, *after *introducing "Seme" in 1906, he ever used any *other *word for a Sign classified as a Possible--rather than an Existent (Pheme/Proposition) or a Necessitant (Delome/Argument)--according to its relation with its Final Interpretant. JFS: 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. Peirce did that already, with the *continuous *predicate, throwing *everything else* within a Proposition into the subject--implying that *none *of its constituent Semes are predicates. Again, a Seme is not *necessarily *a predicate of *any* kind. JFS: That is more ethical than implying that you have a deeper understanding of what Peirce intended than he had. When have I ever made or implied such an outrageous claim? Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 10:16 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 .
