List, John > On Mar 20, 2019, at 8:34 AM, John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > > JAS >> We simply prefer different but equally valid (and equally Peircean) >> analyses of a proposition--you throw everything possible into the >> predicate, leaving only an indicated subject; I throw everything >> possible into the subject, leaving only a continuous predicate. > > I agree that those two methods are logically equivalent. >
Logically equivalent? Logical equivalence has a precise mathematical meaning. No such equivalence relationship is possible, linguistically, either logically, propositionally, syntactically or semantically. In my view, this barely qualifies as informal jargon. 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 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 .
