On 1/26/2017 6:13 PM, Gary Richmond wrote:
the putative distinction between the semeiotic triad seen /as a single triadic entity/ /versus/ the triad *as expressing three relations* seems to me to one worth entertaining in considering what is really a fundamental aspect of Peircean semeiotics.
I agree. As an example of a "degenerate" triad, I would cite Between(x,y,z), which can be defined as a conjunction of two dyads: LeftOf(x,y) & LeftOf(y,z) These two dyads are independent of each other, in the sense that there is no need to postulate a mediating w that relates x,y,z. But the triad Give(x,y,z) is nondegenerate because there must be a mediating act w: (Exists w)(Giver(w,x) & Gift(w,y) & Recipient(w,z)) Linguists say that all three roles are obligatory for the act of giving. If Sue x hands a book y to a child z, that might not be an act of giving. To make it clear that she's giving the book, a sign of intention, such as "Happy Birthday", would be helpful. A willingness to accept intentions, laws, and nominalizations as quantifiable entities distinguishes realists from nominalists. John
----------------------------- 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 .
