BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
John, list
There's a difference between technical terminology and natural
language.
When we use words - and this includes references to Peirce's work -
we don't always mean the technical term but the natural term.
That, for example, is my concern over being 'forbidden' to use the
word 'action' when referring to Thirdness. When I use the word
'action' I am not using it in Peirce's technical sense in a dyadic
framework, but in the natural sense of 'something is actively going
on'.
It is in this sense that I am concerned about limitations being put
on the use of natural language when the same word is also a technical
term in Peirce's vocabulary.
As for his 'final term' vs an earlier term - I acknowledge that I am
not overly concerned about this; I am cautious about an intense focus
on terminology - but, perhaps that 'just me'.
Edwina
On Tue 14/08/18 3:09 PM , John F Sowa s...@bestweb.net sent:
Gary and Edwina,
GF
> I think it’s important to recognize your preference for
“mark”
> over “tone” as a term in semiotics or ontology is a strictly
> personal preference (rather than a logical principle or a fact
> of Peircean usage).
Peirce never changed his terminology without serious reasons.
He chose 'tone' in 1906. In 1908, he expressed concerns about
that choice. When he presented his final classification of
signs, he deliberately replaced 'tone' with 'mark'.
GF
> I don’t recall ever hearing “mark” as a reference to sound,
touch,
> taste, or indeed any sensory modality other than the visual.
The word 'mark' has a much broader range of senses than 'tone'.
For the definitions and examples of usage, compare the entries
for both words on the M-W site: https://www.merriam-webster.com/
[1]
For Peirce's definitions and examples, see the Century Dictionary.
He did not write a definition for 'tone'. For 'mark', note his
definition 4 and his choice of examples by Shakespeare, Milton,
and Kant. See the attached mark_4.jpg.
Also note Peirce's comment immediately after the etymology of
'mark' and before definition 1:
> The sense 'boundary' is older as recorded, though the sense 'sign'
> seems logically precedent. The two groups may indeed be from
> entirely different groups.
This discussion of etymology shows that Peirce considered the word
'mark' to have two distinct "groups" of word senses. Whether his
speculation is correct is less important than the fact that he
considered the sense of 'sign' to be "logically precedent".
It's also significant that Peirce chose to write the definition
of 'mark' and not the definition of 'tone'. Although his work on
the Century Dictionary was about two decades before he considered
the choice between 'tone' and 'mark', his definitions show his
background knowledge of the subject and his ways of thinking.
For the record, note the definition of 'tone' in the Century
Dictionary. The range of senses and examples is much narrower
than 'mark' and quite similar to the entry in M-W.
ET
> It’s a fact that Peirce struggled with finding the best names
for
> the concepts he was trying to communicate, and often changed his
> mind; and I think that is a more significant fact than the fact
> of which choice of name he might have made in his last change
> of mind."
That's true. We have to look at all the evidence and the context
of each version. That's why we need conveniently searchable
transcriptions of *all* his MSS.
But note that the word 'mark' in both the M-W and the Century
dictionaries has a closer overlap with 'sign' than 'tone' has.
According to Peirce's own criteria for choosing terms, that is
an important consideration.
Also note that his classification of signs at the end of 1908
is widely cited as definitive. After thinking and reviewing
all the issues, he chose 'mark' as the word to include in his
final classification. That is not a casual change of mind.
I realize that more publications about Peirce use the word
'tone' -- but that is primarily because his 1906 choice has
been cited and recited for decades. For his final and most
complete classification, his deliberate choice should have
very high priority. Unless anyone can find a later version,
his 1908 choice of 'mark' must be considered definitive.
John
Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.merriam-webster.com%2F
-----------------------------
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 .
