Jerry C., List:
JLRC: I find the notion of “of an incomplete proposition” to be novel. Do
you happen to recall the origin of it?
I believe that it is a well-known and uncontroversial aspect of Peirce's
thought. For example ...
CSP: In the first place, I say that every relationship concerns some
definite number of correlates ... We may express this as saying that every
relation has a definite number of blanks to be filled by indices, or
otherwise ...
In a complete proposition there are no blanks. (CP 3.464-465, 1897)
CSP: By a *rheme*, or *predicate*, will here be meant a blank form of
proposition which might have resulted by striking out certain parts of a
proposition, and leaving a *blank* in the place of each, the parts stricken
out being such that if each blank were filled with a proper name, a
proposition (however nonsensical) would thereby be recomposed. (CP 4.560,
1906)
Similar passages include CP 2.379 (1902), CP 2.272 (1903), and CP 4.454
(1903). Rhemes as incomplete propositions are monads, dyads, triads, etc.
based on the number of blanks; but a complete proposition is a medad,
because it has no blanks.
JLRC: A graphic line of identity is connector between terms / Symbols.
Are you mixing Apples and Oranges?
Not at all. Each line of identity is a subject (concretive designative
term) that denotes an indefinite individual ("something"), while each
labeled spot that is connected to it by means of a peg is a subject
(abstractive descriptive term) that denotes a general concept (quality or
relation) being attributed to that individual by the resulting
proposition. Again, the predicate is signified by the syntax of the
existential graph, not any distinct component that corresponds to the
copula, since pegs are not scribed.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 11:12 PM Jerry LR Chandler <
jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com> wrote:
> 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
>
-----------------------------
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 .
