> On Jun 24, 2016, at 3:30 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote: > > I understand it like "mean", "average" and "normal" are necessary traits of > any predicate, and there is no predicate but within communication, and "mean" > is the common aspect of the communicated subject, "average" is the > agreed-about aspect of it, and "normal" is the standardising aspect.
Sorry for the delay answering. Got busy. While I get the idea your after, I’m not sure it’s really that correct. If we’re talking about predicates (rhemes?) then there’s a set of communications (broadly defined) tied to it. (Both in terms of past and future) There’s a certain shape to those communications that I think exceeds terms like average or mode. Which is why I originally objected to the term. Average often reduces something fairly complex to a single value conceptually which is misleading. That said, as I argued, I still think there’s something to the word. Just not in any statistical sense ultimately even by analogy. To demonstrate what I’m talking about think a graph like the following. (Obviously meant just as analogy - obviously communication of a predicate can’t be reduced to a graph like this)
----------------------------- 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 the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
