----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 10:57
AM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: question about
century dictionary
Joseph,
David:
Thanks for the further
clarification. I wonder, though, if it is not going too far to say
that it was meant to be a state of the art encyclopedia, etc. (see
below)? I looked up the word "dictionary" -- which apparently was not
defined by Peirce -- and it doesn't seem to to warrant regarding it
that way. Here is the entry for that (minus some word-equivalents in
other languages which are too difficult to reproduce
here):
Yes, but I just wanted to stress the fact that the Century Dictionary is
not a "simple" dictionary. The complete title of the work actually became "The
Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia". The end of the "encyclopedia" article you
quote in your other post contains this:
"3. In a narrower sense, a cyclopedia. See cyclopedia, 1.", which goes
(btw not by CSP):
"[Short form of encyclopedia, encyclopædia, q.v.] 1. A book containing
accounts of the principal subjects in one branch of science, art, or learning
in general: as a cyclopedia of botany; a cyclopedia of mechanics.—2.In a
broader sense, a book comprising accounts of all branches of learning; an
encyclopedia. See encyclopedia."
As "Cyclopedia" eventually became the CD's subtitle, this sense 2. is
precisely how the project was conceived and understood by its editors, and by
Peirce. In that sense, I don't think I went too far in describing Peirce's
work as encyclopedic in nature and purpose.
David
---
Message from peirce-l forum
to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free
Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.2.5/284 - Release Date:
3/17/2006