[peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign

[Drs.W.T.M. Berendsen]

So why would the word “red” be a symbol??? To me it is also not. I would regard the word “red” more as being a qualisign, which then would also fit the last sentence below. To me the word “red” can not be a sinsign since it is not an actual existing thing or event. And to me a quality (like red) can also not be a legisign. But I might be wrong. Of course.   Wilfred   Van: Benjamin Udell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Verzonden: dinsdag 13 juni 2006 9:51 Aan: Peirce Discussion Forum Onderwerp: [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign   . If the same rules hold for these 10 trichotomies as for the three, then it would appear, for instance, that all symbols are copulants. Copulants "neither describe nor denote their Objects, but merely express… logical relations"; for example "If--then--"; "--causes--." That seems like it just must be wrong. Then a symbol like the word "red" couldn't be a symbol, instead, since it's descriptive, it can be a legisign, a sinsign, or a qualisign, but in any case it has to be a descriptive abstractive iconic hypothetical sympathetic suggestive gratific rhematic assurance of instinct. That just can't be right.     --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.3/360 - Release Date: 9-6-2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.3/360 - Release Date: 9-6-2006