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 .
