Gary, Jon, List, My note crossed in the mail with Gary's. I responded to the previous notes by Jon and Gary (q.v.).
My conclusion: As words, there is no logical difference between the words 'mark' and 'tone' as a term for a possible mark. In fact, any word pulled out of thin air could be chosen as a term for a possible mark. But some words, such as potisign are rather unusual and may even be considered ugly. They are certainly not memorable. Peirce at one point suggested the word 'mark' as a word for 'possible mark'. That shows he was not fully convinced that 'tone' was the best word for the future. Jon made the claim that Peirce used the word 'tone' more often, mainly in obscure MSS. That is not a ringing endorsement. But we must remember that Tony Jappy also chose the word 'mark' for the triad (mark token type). And he has devoted years of research to the issues. As I pointed out, authorities are not infallible, but they are more likely to be authorities than T. C. Mits (The Common Man in the street). And I myself have been cited as an authority for quite a few issues in logic, including Peirce's logic. See https://jfsowa.com/pubs/ for publications. There are even more lecture slides. (Copies upon request.) But the ultimate judges for the vocabulary are the speakers of the future. The overwhelming majority of knowledgeable logicians, linguists, and philosophers who know the pair (token type) but not the first term, find mark far more congenial and memorable than tone. I discovered that point while talking to them. That is not a scientific survey, but I could not find a single non-Peircean scholar who would even consider the word 'tone'. If anybody else has any further evidence (or just a personal preference) one way or the other, please let us know. John ---------------------------------------- From: "Gary Richmond" <gary.richm...@gmail.com> List, While at first I was sceptical of Jon's keeping this discussion going as it has continued for some time now, yet this most recent post of his reminded me that the principal issue being considered has not been resolved unless you want to accept John's word that it has been and, by the way, completely along the lines of his analysis. In other words, the 'tone' v. 'mark' question has been settled because John says it has and, so, there's no need for further discussion. I have followed this exchange very closely and find that Jon's argumentation is bolstered by textual and other support. For example, contra John, he has repeatedly demonstrated -- again, with more than sufficient textual support - that any use of 'mark' consistent with Peirce's Baldwin Dictionary definition is contrary to Peirce's discussion of 'tone' (and related terms, such as. 'potisign'). For 'mark' is viewed by Peirce as a kind of term and, so, decidedly not a possible sign. Indeed, the very image that comes to my mind for 'mark' is always an existential one, say a mark on a blackboard, or a beauty mark. Conversely, as Jon has repeatedly shown, all of Peirce's definitions of a possible sign include the idea that its being is a significant "quality of feeling," a "Vague Quality," a sign that while "merely possible, [is] felt to be positively possible." John says that when he uses 'mark' as having Peirce's meaning of a "Vague Quality" that his listeners, typically not schooled in Peircean thought, "find it quite congenial" and, so he uses it in all his talks and written work. I can only say that that has not been my experience over the years. For example, earlier this year I gave an invited talk at a session of the George Santayana Society at the Eastern APA on the trichotomic structure of Peirce's Classification of the Sciences where I found that in discussing tone, token, type that my interlocutors -- almost none of whom were familiar with Peirce's semeiotic -- found 'tone' to be most genial and, indeed, one suggested that the three all starting with the letter 't' perhaps constituted a kind of mnemonic device. Well, be that as it may, that notion is certainly trivial (pun intended). Again, it bears repeating that John's remark that, because Tony Jappy used the term 'mark' rather than 'tone', he has adopted it is nothing but the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority. I have had any number of discussions with Peirceans over the past several years, none of whom have faulted my use of 'tone' for that "merely possible" sign. Mark my words! Furthermore, I have found Jon more than willing to learn from his disagreements with others on the List. For example, in several of his papers he has expressed appreciation for the engagement with several Peirce-L members with whom he has 'contended' on the List, including John. And despite John's claim that having read Jon's post prior to this most recent one and finding "nothing new," Jon has clearly shown that he in fact did provide, and "for the first time," a list of all the passages where Peirce uses not only 'tone', but its variants (such as 'tuone' and 'potisgin'). John, on the other hand, has kept repeating his opinions with little textual support. So I ask each member of this forum who has an interest in this topic to honestly weigh the arguments presented by Jon and John and determine for themself who has made the stronger case, John for 'mark' or Jon for 'tone'. Perhaps then we can put the matter to rest (at least for a time). Best, Gary Richmond
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
