I just see all this post on "an other"...
and the error is just ignorance and not emphasys...
I apologize...
thanks Ben for the "verbesserung" of the diagram.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 4:19 PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: The Guerri graph
about some sign relations.
Jim,
I said,
> The only time that one properly splits them without an intervening
word is when one indicates vocal stress of "other" by itself apart from "an"
along with the syllabification "an-other" -- as in "an other
thing."
I guess that that does approximate to the situation that you're
talking about, where one wants a different serving rather than an
additional serving. However "an other" just looks like sloppy
English, which Claudio wouldn't want if he knew how it looks. Italicization or
underlining would be mandatory: "an other serving" or "an
other serving" -- in order to represent that somebody was actually
speaking with that stress on "other" and clearly pronouncing the "an"
separately from "other."
Best, Ben
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 3:09 PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: The Guerri graph about some sign
relations.
Jim,
I don't think that in fact you _would_ say "an...other serving"
in order to mean "another kind of serving." I think that you're drawing right
now on the sense of "other" in a sentence like "He was different, other" --
which is an unusual use of "other" but is clear enough to sustain its
sense but only in such a sentence where it is clearly used as a predicate
rather than as a adjectival or substantive pronoun. It's a use
of "other" to mean that which "otherish" would mean if "otherish"
existed.
I think it really is a matter of diction and of making Claudio's
graphic show good English. One is supposed to write "another," not "an
other," and, again, I think that this is because of pronunciation. We don't
pronounce it "an-other," instead we pronounce it "a-nother." It gets split
only if there's an intervening word like "whole" as in "a whole other issue."
Because of the standard pronunciation "a-nother" the result is that in spoken
English people say "a whole nother..." instead of "a whole other...."
The only time that one properly splits them without an intervening word is
when one indicates vocal stress of "other" by itself apart from "an" along
with the syllabification "an-other" -- as in "an other thing."
But again, people actually say "another" or "a
nother". One might call the spelling "another" a holding action
against a redivision of the written word into "a nother."
I agree about numbers as othernesses. "Other" is not unlike an
ordinal form of the phrase "more".
Best, Ben
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 2:28 PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: The Guerri graph about some sign
relations.
Dear Ben, Wilfred--
Since much of this discussion has focused on the issue of nominal
(categorical) and ordinal (sequential) distinctions, it occurs to me to
mention that "an other" and "another" can (I think) be sometimes used to
emphasize this distinction.
"Another" is sometimes used to emphasizes a
reference to something that is a second, further or additional
something; whereas, "an other" is sometimes used to
place more emphasis upon the distinctiveness between two somethings. For
example if I wanted a second helping of food I might ask for "another"
helping, where as if I wanted a different type of food I might ask for "an
other" serving or entree.
I may be wrong about the above and
mention it not to dispute anyone's anyone's intepretation of these _expression_,
but merely suggest that the question at the heart of this discussion is indeed
a deep one and not merely question of diction. In what sense
Peirce's categories represent nominal verses ordinal modes of being remains
unclear to me. Perhaps his categories hold the key to riddle of quality
verses quantity as well oridinal vs cardinal numbers.
I guess my point
is that for me this discussion of what mode of being are signs has been very
helpful to me. Not for any definitive conclusion that have been reached
but for the issues that have been raised. For example, I'm just
now wondering if there is some value in considering the parallels between
Firtness and quality, Secondness and quantity, and Thirdness and
sequence --- self, an other, another.
Otherness in
itself may be adequate to account for quantity in as much as the notion of
"and" seem implicit in the notion of "otherness" as for example a self
"and" and an other self constitutes otherness. So that quantitity is
implicit in other-others. Likewise time as Peirce oft cited
examplar of Thirdness par excellence carries within it the notion of sequence
or order among others.
Just wondering.
Cheers,
Jim
Piat
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
__________ Información de NOD32,
revisión 1.1662 (20060715) __________
Este mensaje ha sido analizado
con NOD32 antivirus system
http://www.nod32.com
---