List, Jon: Thank you for your comments, which I found to be curious.
The curiosity response arises from a CSP text that made a lot of sense to me from a grammatical perspective, a scientific (chemical causality) perspective and a philosophical perspective. I am referring to MS 229 from Spring 1873, W3, 90-92. Chap.VIII Of the Copula. Is your rhetorical response justified? Some comments are inserted below. > On May 11, 2020, at 8:40 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Jerry C., List: > > JLRC: I suggest that CSP was consistent in his deployment of the triadic > grammatical relatives (subject, copula, predicate). > > On my reading, Peirce did not consider the copula to be an essential part of > a proposition in the same sense as the subjects and predicate. Is this assertion anything more than a tautology? “The term that precedes the copula is called the subject of the proposition and that which follows it the predicate.” [W3,90-92] The gloss of the “copula” includes the logical notation " —< “ which some find to be a critical aspect of CSP’s originality as a logician. > > CSP: I have said that the subjects and predicate are the two parts of an > assertion. (Abelard reckoned the copula as a third part; and in a certain > sense, it is a part of an assertion, but not in the sense in which the > subject and predicate are parts. It is nothing but a mark that the predicate > is to be understood predicatively, that is, as conveying information, and not > as limiting the denotation of the grammatical subject.) (R 339:492, 1908) How else is a predicate to be understood? Historically, this perspective was offered by Leibniz more than a century earlier. > > That is why joining the copula with a term creates a rheme, which can be > treated as the entire predicate of an incomplete proposition. However, this > is an accidental property of certain languages; in others, syntax is > sufficient to signify predication. This sentence makes no sense at all to me. It is my understanding that the logical usage of the word “term” is merely a shortening of the word “terminal”, that is the beginning and ending words of a simple sentence. (Bill marries Rita.) I find the notion of “of an incomplete proposition” to be novel. Do you happen to recall the origin of it? Would this notion > > CSP: Finally, our conclusions require that the proposition should have an > actual Syntax, which is represented to be the Index of those elements of the > fact represented that correspond to the Subject and Predicate. This is > apparent in all propositions. Since Abelard it has been usual to make this > Syntax a third part of the proposition, under the name of the Copula. The > historical cause of the emergence of this conception in the twelfth century > was, of course, that the Latin of that day did not permit the omission of the > verb est, which was familiarly, though not invariably, omitted in Greek, and > not very uncommonly in classical Latin. In most languages there is no such > verb. But it is plain that one does not escape the need of a Syntax by > regarding the Copula as a third part of the proposition; and it is simpler to > say that it is merely the accidental form that Syntax may take. (CP 2.319, EP > 2:292, 1903) > A copula, whether stated or unstated, is necessary to couple the qualisign and sin-sign to the index. Not only rhetorically, but chemically. A sin-sign, as a singular chemical entity, a pure chemical compound, is indexed by data of analysis. These indices are termed molecular weight and molecular formula. CSP was professionally familiar with the critical role of these terms in chemical logic and the formation of the “Rheme" > That is why existential graphs do not include any distinct component that > corresponds to the copula--only spots (labeled by words) for general concepts > and lines (of identity) for the indefinite individuals of which they are > being predicated. Huh? A graphic line of identity is connector between terms / Symbols. Are you mixing Apples and Oranges? > These are abstractive and concretive subjects, respectively, while the > predicate itself is signified by the syntax of their arrangement and > connections. Huh? This rational is only a rhetoric stance. It appears to me that one ought to always bear in mind that CSP was a practical scientist and as such, would implicitly / intrinsically associate logic with causality. Indeed, from a scientific perspective, the three-fold trichotomies function explicitly to associate scientific metrics (qualisigns, indices, symbols) with linguistic terminologies (legisigns.) Cheers Jerry > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 3:07 PM Jerry LR Chandler > <jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com <mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com>> wrote: > List: >> JAS: For example, my speculative grammar does not include qualisigns at all, >> for the reason that I already stated--a quality in itself cannot represent >> something else as its object, it can only present itself. >> > > The sign of an object is represented by qualisigns as metrics of existence. > These are grammatical predicates by the following logical assertion: > > The sin-sign has the qualisigns of x1, x2, x3,…as properties or attributes as > determined by metrics or immediate sensory experiences. > > The assertion: "The index of the sin-sign (subject of a proposition) asserts > the metrics of the descriptive attributes of the sin-sign” if the arguments > are founded on the bedrock of CSP writings, ie, the chemical sciences. > > The assertion: "The grammar of an argument connects the syntax of the indices > with the sin-sign and its predicates with a necessary copula” is necessary to > relate atoms to molecules. > > I suggest that CSP was consistent in his deployment of the triadic > grammatical relatives (subject, copula, predicate). > > Can these notions be embedded into your careful scientific readings of CSP > texts? > > Obviously, these mappings are remote from the compositional mathematics > associated with a particular modern geometric form of category theory. > > But, please note that CSP was expert on the simple metrics of matter as > “Sums” and “Products” necessary for the spontaneity of relations among > relatives, such as 2 H2 + O2 —< 2 H2O. > > And, also please note, that modern geometric forms of category theory depends > on structural mathematical developments grounded in Principia Mathmetica. > Obviously, CSP’s work was decades before these structural mathematical > developments. CSP used chemical category theories to assert his syntax > through indices and the copula necessary to generate the dicisign, did he not? > > 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 . > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
