Robert, list,
Robert's "The Syntax of a Class of Signs" (scroll down to see) is
interesting. Robert might helpfully clarify a few things.
1. Robert's conclusion is
"We can define the syntax of a classe of
signs as the part of the lattice of the ten classes of signs situated below
this class. Then, the complete lattice appears as the grammar of signs."
At least at first glance, given that the foregoing discussion was about the
syntaxes of classes of signs, shouldn't the conclusion be
"... Then
the complete lattice appears as the *syntax* of signs" [emphasis
added] ? I don't know how Peirce defined "grammar." In looking around the Web,
the definitions oftenest mention grammar as involving morphology and syntax.
It's not clear to me that the lattice accommodates all such distinctions as
those involving kinds of hypoicons (images, diagrams, metaphors), etc. If the
lattice doesn't accommodate their distinctions, then Robert might want to call
that "morphology" and thus confine the lattice to syntax. I'm improvising
here, though, so I don't know what I'll think about it tomorrow. Meanwhile,
The Century Dictionary gives for "grammar"
http://www.leoyan.com/century-dictionary.com/03/index03.djvu?djvuopts&page=819:
66~~~~~~~~~~
1. A systematic account of the usages of a language, as regards
especially the parts of speech it distinguishes, the forms and uses of
infiected words, and the combinations of words into sentences; hence, also, a
similar account of a group of languages, or of all languages or language in
general, so far as these admit a common treatment. The formerly
current classification of the subjects of grammar as fivefold, namely,
_orthography_, _orthoëpy_, _etymology_, _syntax_,
and _prosody_, is heterogeneous and obsolescent. The first and last do
not belong really to grmnmar, though often for convenience included in the
text-books of grammar; _orthoëpy_ is properly phonology or phonetics,
an account of the system of sounds used by a language and of their
combinations; and _etymology_ is improperly used for an account of the
parts of speech mid their inflections. See these words. Abbreviated
_gram._
[examples]
2. Grammatical statements viewed as the rules of a language to which
speakers or writers must conform; propriety of linguistic usage; accepted or
correct mode of speech or writing.
[examples]
3. A treatise on grammar. Hence--4. An account of the elements of any
branch of knowledge, prepared for teaching or learning; an outline or sketch
of the principles of a subject: as, a grammar of geography; a grammar of
art.--5. The formal principles of any science; a system of rules to be
observed in the putting together of any kind of elements.
[examples]
Comparative grammar, grammatical
treatment of a number of languages, compariug their phenomena in order to
derive knowledge of their relations and history or to deduce general
principles of language.
~~~~~~~~~~99
2. The thought that, by Robert's standard, the syntax of arguments is the
same thing as "the grammar [or syntax] of signs," got me to thinking about the
qualisign at the other extreme. The qualisign would just be by itself. Can
that be right? This may be a question of phrasing. The qualisign has, in
Robert's sense, minimal syntax proper to it, but the qualisign is involved
in the syntax of all other signs. So, one might distinguish between, for
instance, the syntax of the involvent dicisign and the syntax of the involute
dicisign.
3. Is Robert saying that the lattice contains all the distinct
information needed to generate the essentials of a paragraph like the one
which he quotes from Peirce? Are all such conceptions as those of the replica
adequately implied? Now, I don't know whether he would be going too far
with such claims. But I'm wondering whether that's basically what Robert
is claiming.
Incidentally, I recreated the graphic images as monochrome bitmaps,
which Marty is free to use without attribution if he wants them. I recreated
them because I assumed that the originals were the cause of his rtf (rich
text file)'s being so large (around 850KB). But then I found that, in fact,
his graphic images are quite low-KB -- jpgs ranging from 3KB to
11KB. However, the rtf stored them in a way that made the file very
large. I guess that's what rtfs do. Replacement with the monochrome bitmaps
reduced the rtf filesize from around 850KB to around 72KB. The monochrome
bitmaps themselves are 0.842KB, 2.21KB, & 3.38KB.
Best, Ben Udell
THE SYNTAX OF A CLASS OF SIGNS [Robert
Marty].
http://www.univ-perp.fr/see/rch/lts/marty/lattices/Lattice-CP.rtf
[Marty also directs attention to http://www.univ-perp.fr/see/rch/lts/marty/lattices/Lattice-CP.rtf ]
On two occasions in the texts on the ten classes of signs 2-254 to 2-263
Peirce talk of the syntax of a class :
First in 2-257 concerning the Dicent Sinsign [ 2® 2® 2 ] he write :
"Such a Sign must involve an Iconic Sinsign [ 2® 1® 1 ] to embody the information and a Rhematic
Indexical Sinsign [ 2® 2® 1 ] to indicate the
Object to which the information refers. [
.]
But the mode of combination, or Syntax
, of these two must
also be significant."
Remember that the logical presuppositions relationships between the three
classes are the following :
![](bmpOBQUXvStV3.bmp)
I consider because is the only reasonnable abduction that this diagram
bring to light what Peirce evoke when he use the term "syntax" and represent
the syntax of these class.
Second in 2-262 concerning the Dicent Symbol
[ 3® 3® 2 ] he write :
"The dicent symbol [ 3® 3® 2 ] or ordinary Proposition, is a sign connected with
its object by an association of general ideas, and acting like a
Rhematic Symbol [ 3® 3® 1 ] , except that its intended interpretant
represents the Dicent Symbol [ 3®
3® 2 ] as being, in respect to what it signifies,
really affected [ 2 ] by its Object, so that the existence [ 2 ]
or law [ 3 ] which it calls to mind must be actually connected with the
indicated Object. Thus, the intended Interpretant looks upon the Dicent
Symbol [ 3® 3® 2
] as a Dicent Indexical Legisign [ 3® 2® 2 ] ; and if it be
true, it does partake of this nature, although this does not represent its
whole nature. Like the Rhematic Symbol [ 3®
3® 1 ] , it is
necessarily a Legisign. Like the Dicent Sinsign [
2® 2® 2 ] it is
composite inasmuch as it necessarily involves a
Rhematic Symbol [ 3® 3® 1 ] (and thus is for its Interpretant an
Iconic Legisign [ 3® 1® 1 ] ) to express its information and a Rhematic
Indexical Legisign [ 3® 2® 1 ] to indicate the subject of that information.
But its Syntax of these is
significant. The Replica of the Dicent Symbol
[ 3® 3® 2 ] is a
Dicent Sinsign [ 2® 2® 2 ]of a peculiar kind. This is easily seen to be true
when the information the Dicent Symbol [ 3® 3® 2 ] conveys is of actual
fact. When that information is of a real law, it is not true in the same
fullness. For a Dicent Sinsign [ 2® 2® 2 ]cannot convey information of law. It is,
therefore, true of the Replica of such a Dicent Symbol [
3® 3® 2 ]only in so far
as the law has its being in instances.
The corresponding diagram is the following :
![](bmpzJ4wGc0nUR.bmp)
We can complete this diagram with the other classes and their relations (
logical presuppositions) :
![](bmpviDrXsFXUm.bmp)
One can notice that we obtain the part of the lattice of the ten classes of
signs situated below the dicent symbol . Here also we can consider that we
have the syntax of the dicent
symbol.
Conclusion :
We can define the syntax of a classe of signs as the part of the lattice of
the ten classes of signs situated below this class.
Then, the complete lattice appears as the grammar of
signs.
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Ce message a été vérifié par MailScanner
pour des virus
ou des polluriels et rien de
suspect n'a été trouvé.
CRI Université de
Perpignan