Jerry C., List: When Peirce talked about throwing "everything" into the subject, he was referring to *logical analysis* of a proposition; and what he meant by "everything" was "everything that can be so thrown." It is not possible to throw *absolutely *everything into either the subject or predicate, and still have a proposition. Since the boundary between them can be arbitrarily drawn anywhere within two extremes, where it falls ultimately depends on the *purpose *of the analysis.
What is left over as the subject when "everything" is thrown into the predicate is a quantified variable--"anything you please," "something I could designate," or "this particular thing"; or in an Existential Graph, a *continuous *subject, "something that is identical to something." The function of the proposition is then taken to be attributing one or more predicates to that one subject. What is left over as the predicate when "everything" is thrown into the subject is a *continuous *predicate--"possesses the character of," "is identical to," "belongs to the class of," "is in the relation of _____ to," etc. The function of the proposition is then taken to be relating two or more subjects by means of that one predicate. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 10:09 AM Jerry LR Chandler < [email protected]> wrote: > List, John: > > Recent posts to this list serve have highlighted certain aspects of > grammar with respect to logic. > Here, I would make a simple comment in relation to grammar and logics. > The reader is referred to G. Sher, Epistemic Frictions (Oxford, 2016) for > background discussion. > > On Feb 7, 2019, at 10:29 PM, John F Sowa <[email protected]> wrote: > > In NEM 3:885, Peirce wrote "A proposition can be separated into a > predicate and subjects in more ways than one.” > > In my analysis from the perspective of formative foundations of natural > logics, the following problem is fundamental to formal logic as well as > other synthetic (human) symbol systems. > For any sentence: > > The number of subjects may to several. > The number of copula may be several. > The number of relations among the subjects may be several. > The number of properties of the subjects may be several. > A sentence may express a number of changes among the subjects, relations, > copula and properties. > > How does the AUTHOR of the proposition associate the possible relations > and changes of relations among all of the subjects, copula and properties? > > A priori, if one decides “to throw” EVERYTHING into the subject terms, or > EVERYTHING into the predicate terms, then all relations of the proposition > must be either among the subject terms (nouns, indefinite or proper) or > among the predicates terms (properties, attributes, signs of…). > > Some linguistic questions are: > Who is doing the “throwing”? > How is the “throwing” done? > What motivates the ’throwing” > > What are the logical antecedents of the “throwing”? > What are the differences in the logical consequences of throwing “here” > rather than throwing “there”? > > Internally, I ask myself the questions: > Are the above questions about linguistics? > Are the above questions about the foundations of logic? > How do the above questions relate to the foundations of mathematics? > > 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 [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
