Dear list: “the fact that A presents B with gift C...”
“I cannot forget that there are the germs of the *theory of the categories* which is (if anything is) the gift I make to the world. That is my child. In it I shall live when oblivion has me — my body” The surprising fact, *C*, is observed; But if *A* were true, *C* would be a matter of course, Hence, there is reason to suspect that *A* is true. (CP 5.189) _______ Three dyads: C is B A is C B is A; (middle term C) Converting and then ordering gives: middle term *A* (Rule/Result/Case- C B *A*) or, middle term *B* (Result/Rule/Case- C A *B*) So, choose: C A *B* or C B *A * (triadic relations = three dyads). Hth, Jerry Rhee On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Jerry LR Chandler < jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com> wrote: > List, Charles: > > On Apr 30, 2017, at 2:43 PM, Charles Pyle <charlesp...@comcast.net> wrote: > > Many years ago linguists chewed over the issue of whether the semantic > analysis of three place predicates can be broken down into a series of two > place predicates and discovered that the two are not semantically or > grammatically equivalent. > > ‘Bob gave a book to Sue' is not equivalent to e.g. ‘Bob caused Sue to have > a book’ > > I am not sure how this would impact the argument in formal logic, since > ordinary language and formal logic often part ways (e.g. ‘Bob is not > unhappy’ does not equal ‘Bob is happy’), but it seems relevant in > evaluating Peirce’s claim. > > Yes, and CSP recognized this in his views on graph theory. > > And, it further necessary to separate the structures of the grammar. > > The arrangements of the order of the terms is crucial in determining the > meaning. > Three particular nouns can form three dyadic relations - “John gives John > to John” (Roberts, Fig. 5 p.25). > Or, > Four nouns can be arranged in linear order by syncategormatic terms: > *John* sells a *book* to *Susan* for a *dollar. (For CSP, this is > represented by four blanks (loose ends) in the sentence structure)* > > Or, more interestingly, is the possibility of a branched structure in > CSP’s example of the four atoms of ammonia (Roberts, Fig. 6, p.25). In the > branched graphic structure of the four atoms of ammonia, one atom is in > relation to the other three atoms. In other words, the nitrogen atom is in > direct dyadic relation with each of the three hydrogen atoms. > > In summary, > 1. No simple rules of grammar exist between integer numbers and icons of > relations, as you noted. > 2. And, the grammatical role of syncategormatic words can play a decisive > role in how the dyadic relations are formed. > 3. The logic of the concept of a relation is extra-ordinary difficult to > express exactly because the grammatical meaning of the categorical terms is > changed by the syncategormatic terms. This was illustrated by the two > figures in Robert’s book. Other examples abound. > > John S.’s examples are equally relevant. > > Cheers > Jerry > > > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
