John, List: JFS: You're grasping at straws to salvage a lost cause.
I have made my case, as carefully and thoroughly as I could at each round of the exchange; those reading along can decide for themselves which of us has been more persuasive. JFS: And when you're relating two different notations, such as English and EGs, you have to be absolutely precise about the grammar and semantics of each one and their mappings to and from the other. Natural languages are anything but precise, and as Peirce himself affirmed, even in logic the dividing line between the subject and predicate within any given proposition is somewhat arbitrary. JFS: Gary F lost patience with your style of pulling random phrases from different contexts ... The Peirce quotes that I routinely provide to support my interpretations are hardly random; and while Gary F. and I have distinct approaches to the texts, we are consistently respectful of each other and recognize the value of our differences. JFS: ... to make a hopelessly confused attempt to defend the indefensible. My previous note is a definitive statement of the issues. Repeatedly employing such rhetoric, rather than dealing with the substance, suggests a lack of confidence in one's own position and argumentation. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 7:51 AM John F Sowa <[email protected]> wrote: > On 3/20/2019 10:57 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: > > Peirce did not say, "Every sentence in English contains a grammatical > > subject and a grammatical predicate"; he said, "Every proposition > > contains a Subject and a Predicate." > > You're grasping at straws to salvage a lost cause. > > > The title of the manuscript is "Sundry Logical Conceptions," > > not "Sundry Grammatical Conceptions" (EP 2:267). > > Irrelevant. Every disciplined notation of any kind -- language, > logic, music, financial transactions... -- has a syntax (grammar) > and a semantics (meaning). It's impossible to talk about any > notation without considering both. And when you're relating two > different notations, such as English and EGs, you have to be > absolutely precise about the grammar and semantics of each one > and their mappings to and from the other. > > Gary F lost patience with your style of pulling random phrases > from different contexts to make a hopelessly confused attempt > to defend the indefensible. > > My previous note is a definitive statement of the issues. Gary had > some legitimate questions about the terminology. I'll explain the > issues in my reply to Gary. > > Unless and until you study these notes in detail, continuing > this thread is a total waste of time. > > 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 .
