John, List, I too agree with Gary f and JAS that choosing 'mark' rather than 'tone' is a judgment call.
A number of weeks (months?) ago when this was first discussed on the list I also mentioned that there was perhaps some pedagogical value in having three 't's': tone/token/type. But of much great significance, in discussions with the linguist, Michael Shapiro (a member of this list and a Peirce-oriented linguist) I've become familiar with the importance of the concept of 'markedness' in linguistics. 'Mark' having established a decided meaning in that discipline is perhaps yet another reason to prefer 'tone' to 'mark' in semeiotics. In linguistics, *markedness* refers to the way words are changed or added to give a special meaning. The *unmarked choice* is just the normal meaning. For example, the present tense is unmarked for English verbs. If I just say "walk" that refers to the present tense. But if I add something to "walk" (marking it), such as adding ‘ed’ to the end, I can indicate the past: "walked". http://www.analytictech.com/mb119/markedne.htm Other parts of this brief article from which this quotation is taken perhaps bear on this discussion as well. For example: Outside of linguistics, markedness refers more generally to a choice that has meaning. If I meet you on campus and say "Hi, how are you?" you may or may not even answer the question. But if I say "Hi, how’s your dad?" this is special. You are likely to think of the question as actually asking how your dad is. A good short introduction to linguistic markedness can be found here: https://www.thoughtco.com/markedness-language-term-1691302 Best, Gary R *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *718 482-5690* On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 4:52 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote: > John S., List: > > JFS: Unless anyone can find a later version, his 1908 choice of 'mark' > must be considered definitive. > > > I am inclined to agree with Gary F. that this is a judgment call. In > fact, given my current concern with emphasizing that (strictly speaking) > every Sign is a Type, the fact that "mark" has an etymological sense > overlapping with "sign" is actually an argument *against *using it when > referring to the significant characters of Sign-Replicas. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 2:09 PM, John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > >> 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/ >> >> 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 > >
----------------------------- 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 .
