John, List: JFS: No version of logic after syllogisms made a binary distinction between subject and predicate.
That statement is false. According to my dictionary, a "subject" is defined as "the term of a logical proposition that denotes the entity of which something is affirmed or denied," and a "predicate" is defined as "something that is affirmed or denied of the subject in a proposition in logic." More to the point, *Peirce *consistently made such a distinction, as the many quotes that I have offered amply demonstrate. 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 3:01 PM John F Sowa <[email protected]> wrote: > On 3/21/2019 11:59 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: > > 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. > > That statement is partly false, and rest is misleading. > > 1. The syntax of NLs is the most precise aspect. The semantics > is often vague because the subject matter is continuous, the > context is continuous, and the words are discrete. > > 2. But the syntax of well-edited writing in ordinary language > can be parsed by computer with a high degree of accuracy. > And the syntax of every version of formal logic can be parsed > with 100% accuracy. > > 3. No version of logic after syllogisms made a binary distinction > between subject and predicate. Therefore, the mapping from the > logic to the subject and predicate of an English sentence requires > the speaker or writer to use shared (AKA collateral) knowledge or > experience. Since the speaker or writer can never be certain > about what is shared, errors and inaccuracies often occur. > > For examples and explanations about vagueness in NL semantics, see > "What is the source of fuzziness?" http://jfsowwa.com/pubs/fuzzy.pdf > > For issues about contexts in language and the mapping to logic, see > See http://jfsowa.com/talks/contexts.pdf > > For the search for a "natural logic" in the foundations for language > and logic, see http://jfsowa.com/talks/natlog.pdf > > Please read those references. Even if you disagree with me, read > the citations and quotations of other authors (mostly with URLs). > > 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 .
