Jon, List, In the concluding note of the thread on (Mark Token Type}, I quoted Peirce's explanation why the word that names an abstract 'might be' should have exactly the same spelling as the word that names the actual thing. See below for a copy of my previous note, which includes a copy of Peirce's statement.
But I noticed that in your recent note, you fell back on Peirce's unfortunate choice of 'Tone' as the first term in that trichotomy. In Peirce's explanation below (December 1911), he showed why the term 'existential graph', which names an abstract "might be" has exactly the same spelling as the term for the visible thing that is scribed on a phemic sheet. Then he added that "the graph itself [is] a mere form, an abstraction, a "general", or as I call it a 'might be' " which is "just like a 'word', any word, say camel". I'm glad that he used the example of 'camel' because it emphasizes the profound difference between the word 'mark' and the word 'tone' as they may be used for the first term in the trichotomy ( ____ token type). Consider the following two sentences: 1. A hump is a mark of a camel. 2. A trunk is a mark of an elephant. Those two sentences are normal sentences that any English speaker would understand, whether or not they had read anything by Peirce. Now consider the following two sentences: 1. A hump is a tone of a camel. 2. A trunk is a tone of an elephant. Those two sentences would sound strange to anyone, even somebody who had read Peirce's writings. For those of us who believe that it's important to bring Peirce's writings to the attention of a much wider audience, we cannot assume that our readers are Peirce scholars (or wannabe Peirce scholars). In his ethics of terminology, Peirce made it clear that if nobody else uses one of his neologisms, he had no obligation to continue its use. It is abundantly clear that philosophers, linguists, and even computer programmers have adopted and used the pair (token type) frequently, and some of them even mention Peirce. But nobody, except Peirce scholars, use 'tone' as the first term. And even Peirce scholars never use it for a broad audience. Fundamental principle: We live in the 21st C. Our readers live in the 21st C. The word 'tone' was confusing to Peirce's readers, and it is confusing to our readers today. It has no redeeming social or academic value whatsoever. Get rid of it. John -------------------------------------------------------------- The last note on the thread (Mark Token Type): Great news! I came across a quotation by Peirce that explains why the word that names an abstract "might be" SHOULD have exactly the same spelling as the word that names the actual thing that we observe by any external of internal senses. Furthermore, his explanation takes just three sentences. Peirce's explanation below says that an existential graph REALLY is an abstract might-be. However, we are permitted to call the perceptible replica on a phemic sheet an existential graph PROVIDED THAT we acknowledge the distinction between the might-be and the replica. To generalize, following is my edit of the quotation below. My words are enclosed in brackets (except for "[is]", which was added by the editor of the MS): "Any [observable] form which, if it [were to be observed anywhere] would be [a mark] is called [a mark]. If it actually be so [observed], it would be incorrect to say that the [mark] itself is [observed]. For that would be an impossibility, since the [mark] itself [is] a mere form, an abstraction, a "general", or as I call it a "might be", i.e. something which might be if conditions were otherwise than they are; and in that respect it [is] just like a "word", any word, say camel". As for the reason why 'mark' is the best word for both the might-be and the actual is justified by Peirce: The word that is used for the might-be should be applicable to all the actual occurrences. Peirce's definition of 'mark' in Baldwin's dictionary is applicable to marks observable by any or all external and internal senses (i.e. anything that appears in the phaneron).. But the word 'tone', which is applicable to a subset of auditory sensations, is far less general than the word 'mark'. The quotation below, from December 1911, is Peirce's final word on this subject. Although he wrote it about existential graphs, it may be generalized to any type of might-be and actual. If the principle is sufficiently general that it can be applied to camels, it should be applicable to marks. This note answers every question, objection, and alternative that anybody has written in all the notes on this subject. John ___________________________ Any visible form which, if it were scribed on the phemic sheet would be an assertion is called a graph. If it actually be so scribed, it would be incorrect to say that the graph itself is put upon the sheet. For that would be an impossibility, since the graph itself [is] a mere form, an abstraction, a "general", or as I call it a "might be", i.e. something which might be if conditions were otherwise than they are; and in that respect it [is] just like a "word", any word, say camel (L376, December 1911).
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
