[peirce-l] Re: A sign as First or third...

[Jean-Marc Orliaguet]

For the record, here some more definitions where the use of English grammar is not entirely consistent. Is it a question of prestige or can't anyone who was so 100% positive that these cannot be ordinal labels comment on this? 1) we have the terms 'second', 'third' (without capital letter) without referent. 1903 - C.P. 1-541 - Lowell Lectures: Lecture III, vol. 21, 3d Draught . My definition of a representamen is as follow: A REPRESENTAMEN is a subject of a triadic relation TO a second, called its OBJECT, FOR a third, called is INTERPRETANT, this triadic relation being such that the REPRESENTAMEN determines its interpretant to stand in the same triadic relation to the same object for some interpretant. ----- 2) here Peirce uses 'First', 'Second' and 'Third' as adjectives: 1903 - C.P. 2_242 - Nomenclature and Divisions of Triadic Relations, as far as they are determined . A Representamen is the First Correlate of a triadic relation, the Second Correlate being termed its Object, and the possible Third Correlate being termed its Interpretant, ----- 3) here Peirce uses 'first', 'second', 'third' as adjectives with a noun: 'something', a 'second something', a 'third something', 1906 - MS 292. Prolegomena to an Apology for Pragmaticism . A sign may be defined as something (not necessarily existent) which is so determined by a second something called its Object that it will tend in its turn to determine a third something called its Interpretant source: http://www.univ-perp.fr/see/rch/lts/MARTY/76defeng.htm /JM --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com