John, List: Anyone is welcome to make a case for the opinion that "mark" is a *better *choice than "tone" for the first member of the trichotomy for sign classification whose other two members are "token" and "type," but no one can accurately claim that "mark" was *Peirce's *final and definitive choice. He used "tone" in the last known manuscript where he presented that trichotomy, and he heard from Lady Welby a few weeks later--in response to his specific request for her advice on the matter--that she preferred "tone." Again, I agree with her.
JFS: The word 'tone' in that example is a very special case that is limited to the sound of a voice that is speaking something. A tone of voice is merely the *example *that Peirce gives in CP 4.537 (1906) to illustrate what he has in mind. His *definition *of a tone in that passage is "an indefinite significant character," as opposed to a token as a "Single event which happens once and whose identity is limited to that one happening or a Single object or thing which is in some single place at any one instant of time, such event or thing being significant only as occurring just when and where it does," and a type as "a definitely significant Form." Accordingly, a tone is a *quality *of a token that affects its dynamical interpretant. JFS: Every tone is a mark, which may also be a token of some type. In that case, "mark" is a terrible choice--a sign must be classified as *either *a mark/tone, a token, or a type; unlike icon/index/symbol, this trichotomy is not a matter of degree. Consider its terminological predecessor--a qualisign *cannot *also be a replica (sinsign) of some legisign. Instead, a qualisign must be *embodied *in a sinsign, and likewise, a mark/tone must be *embodied *in a token. Regards, Jon On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 4:55 PM John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > On this issue, the evidence for the trichotomy (Mark Token Type) is > overwhelming. Just look at the first instance in the Prolegomena, or the > copy in CP 4.537 where Peirce adopts 'Tone' as the name of the first item > in the trichotomy: "An indefinite significant character such as a tone of > voice can neither be called a Type nor a Token." > > The word 'tone' in that example is a very special case that is limited to > the sound of a voice that is speaking something. I have a high regard for > Peirce's choices, but the word 'tone' applies to a tiny subset of marks. > Just look at Peirce's definition of mark in Baldwin's dictionary. Every > tone is a mark, which may also be a token of some type. But only a tiny > subset of marks are tones. I have a high regard for Peirce's decisions, > but when he himself has doubts about his previous choice, that is not a > solid endorsement. There is no ethical reason for keeping it. > > Now go to the letter to Welby (also CP 8.363): "From the summer of 1905 > to the same time in 1906, I devoted much study to my ten trichotomies of > signs. It is time I reverted to the subject, as I know I could now make it > much clearer. But I dare say some of my former names are better than those > I now use. I formerly called a Potisign a Tinge or Tone, an Actisign a > Token, a Famisign a Type;... > > CP 367. "an Abstractive must be a Mark, while a Type must be a Collective, > which shows how I conceived Abstractives and Collectives... > > Note Peirce's choice of Mark. That is consistent with his definition of > 'mark' in Baldwin's dictionary. That was written before 1903, when the > only trichotomy was "Icon Index Symbol". Every tone of voice is a mark, > but most marks are not tones of voice or tones of anything else. Note that > Peirce had also considered the word 'tinge' instead of 'tone'. Every tinge > is also a mark. > > JAS: his final choice of "tone" (R 339, 27 Dec 1908, > https://iiif.lib.harvard.edu/manifests/view/drs:15255301$636i). > > I admit that he slipped back to an old (bad) habit in that example two > days later. But that example does not negate (1) the fact that a tone of > voice is a limited special case of a mark, as in his own definition in > Balwin's dictionary; (2) the fact that he had coined the word 'potisign' as > a general technical term for the first item in the trichotomy; (3) the fact > that he selected 'mark', not 'tone', as the replacement for potisign; and > finally (4) the modern world has adopted Peirce's terms 'token' and 'type', > but not 'tone'. > > But I have found from my lectures and writings that modern logicians, > philosophers, and computer scientists very readily accept the trichotomy > (mark token type), but not (tone token type). Since Peirce was always > writing for the future, that makes 'mark' the choice for the future. A > tone is a limited and confusing special case of mark. > > On this point, Tony made the correct choice. The word 'tone' should be > used *ONLY *in exact quotations of Peirce's MSS. In all discussions of > Peirce's system in the 21st C, (Mark Token Type) is the recommended choice. > > > John > > ------------------------------ > *From*: "Jon Alan Schmidt" <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > > John, List: > > JFS: That definition shows that two things that have the same mark are two > tokens of the same type. > > > This is another reason why "tone" is a better choice than "mark" for "an > indefinite significant character such as a tone of voice." Two things can > have *different *tones, yet be tokens of the *same *type; and two things > can have (some of) the *same *tones, yet be tokens of *different *types. > > JFS: It confirms Peirce's final choice. > > > Indeed--his final choice of "tone" (R 339, 27 Dec 1908, > https://iiif.lib.harvard.edu/manifests/view/drs:15255301$636i). > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > <http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 8:14 PM John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > > Jon, > > I forgot to thank you for including the link to Peirce's definition of > 'mark': > > Peirce presents in his entry for it in Baldwin's *Dictionary of > Philosophy and Psychology* (https://gnusystems.ca/BaldwinPeirce.htm#Mark) > > Yes indeed. That definition shows that two things that have the same > mark are two tokens of the same type. > > It confirms Peirce's final choice. > > John > >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
