Curiosity--- 
At an anglophonic kennel club, if the toilet door sign has the word "pointers" 
that stands for "men" as a male washroom, then the word "pointers" is seemingly 
a different type, albeit a different synonym of sorts as determined by the same 
meant object. It is after all the referred object that determines the main kind 
or type a sign will be in any signage or language at least as an icon or index 
or symbol; and any type is a mental construct of law with an exemplified 
presence that cannot be shown materially except by a sampled token fact that 
stands for the type. This whole issue for say subsigns of course drifts into 
the many complex versions and aspects of tones and tokens and types, all of 
which seems somewhat unclear to me. 
Footnote--- 
If a male pictogram for a toilet depicted a man in a kilt or a robe instead of 
in pants or tights, then the sign panels would all seemingly be male tokens or 
fonts of a usual "man" type, because the tokens all stand in identical ways for 
the same referred determinate object. If a single specific pictogram were 
isolated as a common type of them all, then that selected sample would itself 
probably be a kind of master token, because a mental type is likely an 
exemplified law that can only be sensibly manifested by a material token of 
factual substance. In other words, to point to a type is perhaps to point to a 
token of that type. 
---Frances 


From: Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> 
Sent: Thursday, 24 January, 2019 16:25
To: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Signs, Types, Tokens, Instances
Jon, Auke, List,
Jon wrote: 
"According to the second long quote [. . .] "man" and "homme" are one and the 
same Sign, consistent with his statement elsewhere that "a sign is not a real 
thing" (EP 2:303; 1904). [. . .] My question remains whether "man" and "homme" 
are also one and the same Type, or two different Types of the same Sign.
Again, I now lean toward the latter.  The three-letter sequence, m-a-n, is "a 
definitely significant Form" that an individual Token must embody (at least 
approximately) in order to serve as an actual Instance of the Type in written 
English.  The five-letter sequence, h-o-m-m-e, is "a definitely significant 
Form" that an individual Token must embody (at least approximately) in order to 
serve as an actual Instance of the Type in written French.  To me, these 
different specifications for Instances imply different Types."

I have only a couple of questions at the moment. If the three and five letter 
sequences of the written word for man/homme are each definitely significant 
forms, then I assume the spoken words are as well. If so, then are all 
variations in pronunciation of 'man' or 'homme' (either a personal or regional 
variation) definitely significant forms and so "specifications for Instances 
imply different Types"? 
Is a misspelling, say, "mann" for "man" in a English sentence otherwise quite 
correct, say by a young German student of English and easily seen to have the 
same meaning as the English word (and, indeed, being the German word for 'man' 
minus the capitalization which it would have in German), a specification of an 
instance of a different type? Similarly, is this so for the mispronunciation of 
a English student of Thomas Mann's last name?
Similarly is every image (for the moment, let's limit it to the kinds of 
abstractions one sees on the doors of restrooms in France and the USA) of a 
man/homme.


a significantly different form and so also an instance implying a different 
type?
Because of my own tentative answers to these questions, at the moment I'm 
leaning towards the first of the two interpretations Jon offered, that 'man' 
and 'homme' (written or spoken, etc.) are the same type.
Perhaps another way of asking these questions would be: How does the meaning of 
the word or image of a man figure into all of this? All the tokens/instances 
(except the example of Thomas Mann's name) have the same meaning, have they not?
Best, Gary 

 

-----------------------------
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 .




Reply via email to