Jon, Auke, list,
isnt it so, that in the context of sign classification a sign is either a quali-, sin-, or legisign, all of which may or may not have the adjective "rhematic"? So, in this context, "a rheme" is not regarded as a sign, but "rhematic" is regarded as an adjective, a trait of a sign resp. its interpretant relation?
Leaving this context, but still to be in accord with it , I would propose saying, that a rheme or seme (I havent got the difference) "is" not a sign, but can function as a sign, if it is perceived, and then this sign "is" rhematic, but "is" a quali-, sin-, or legisign, but not "is a rheme"?
Best,
Helmut
Auke, List:
AvB: I prefer terms like Rhematic in order to underscore that it always is about sign aspects ...
No, it is not. Again, the trichtomies do not identify "sign aspects" or "aspects of signs"; there are zero instances of any such phrase in the eight volumes of CP and two volumes of EP. Peirce proposed the three trichotomies of 1903 and the ten trichotomies of 1906-1908 as alternative bases for identifying mutually exclusive classes of Signs. Every Sign theoretically belongs to exactly one of the ten classes of 1903, and would belong to exactly one of the 66 classes of 1906-1908 if anyone ever managed to sort them all out.
Every Sign is either a Seme, a Proposition, or an Argument; and every Sign is either an Icon, an Index, or a Symbol. In accordance with the "rule of determination" (EP 2:481; 1908), every Argument is a Symbol, and every Proposition is either an Index or a Symbol; while a Seme can be an Icon, an Index, or a Symbol.
AvB: Although a rheme cannot perform an indexical function ...
I am aware of no warrant for this statement whatsoever from Peirce's writings. If a Sign is a Rhematic Index (Indexical Seme), then by definition it is a Rheme (Seme) that can and does perform an indexical function.
AvB: When we think of a composite sentence like "there is a cow". 'there' is the replica index and 'a cow' the symbolical, rhematic legisign of the compound forged by the copula.
In this context, "there" is a pronoun, hence a Rhematic Indexical Legisign; i.e., a Rheme (Seme) that performs an indexical function. By itself, it is certainly not a Dicisign (Proposition), which is the only alternative classification for an Index.
AvB: I don't see any harm in distinguishing an index as a possible, without actual indexical function and an index in actu.
If a Sign is not performing any actual indexical function, how could it be properly classified as an Index at all?
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 11:07 AM Auke van Breemen <[email protected]> wrote:
John, List,
Regarding:
JAS
> Drawing attention to something actual is denoting that Object, which
> is the function of an Index (EP 2:306-307; 1904); and a Rheme
> obviously can be an Index, so it is false that a Rheme "can refer only
> to possible objects."
No. A rheme is never an index.
I prefer terms like Rhematic in order to underscore that it always is about sign aspects, and if those terms are used pars pro toto, I always take them as a short hand for a sign aspect complex that is left indefinite as to its constituents.
Although a rheme cannot perform an indexical function, we may single out an indexical, rhematical legisign. When we think of a composite sentence like "there is a cow". 'there' is the replica index and 'a cow' the symbolical, rhematic legisign of the compound forged by the copula.
I don't see any harm in distinguishing an index as a possible, without actual indexical function and an index in actu.
Kind regards,
Auke
----------------------------- 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 .
