[peirce-l] Re: The Guerri graph about some sign relations.

[Benjamin Udell]

Jim,   I said, > The only time that one properly splits them without an intervening word is when one indicates vocal stress of "other" by itself apart from "an" along with the syllabification "an-other" -- as in "an other thing." I guess that that does approximate to the situation that you're talking about, where one wants a different serving rather than an additional serving.  However "an other" just looks like sloppy English, which Claudio wouldn't want if he knew how it looks. Italicization or underlining would be mandatory: "an other serving" or "an other serving" -- in order to represent that somebody was actually speaking with that stress on "other" and clearly pronouncing the "an" separately from "other."   Best, Ben   ----- Original Message ----- From: Benjamin Udell To: Peirce Discussion Forum Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 3:09 PM Subject: [peirce-l] Re: The Guerri graph about some sign relations. Jim,   I don't think that in fact you _would_ say "an...other serving" in order to mean "another kind of serving." I think that you're drawing right now on the sense of "other" in a sentence like "He was different, other" -- which is an unusual use of "other" but is clear enough to sustain its sense but only in such a sentence where it is clearly used as a predicate rather than as a adjectival or substantive pronoun. It's a use of "other" to mean that which "otherish" would mean if "otherish" existed.    I think it really is a matter of diction and of making Claudio's graphic show good English. One is supposed to write "another," not "an other," and, again, I think that this is because of pronunciation. We don't pronounce it "an-other," instead we pronounce it "a-nother." It gets split only if there's an intervening word like "whole" as in "a whole other issue." Because of the standard pronunciation "a-nother" the result is that in spoken English people say "a whole nother..." instead of "a whole other...."  The only time that one properly splits them without an intervening word is when one indicates vocal stress of "other" by itself apart from "an" along with the syllabification "an-other" -- as in "an other thing."  But again, people actually say "another" or "a nother".  One might call the spelling "another" a holding action against a redivision of the written word into "a nother."   I agree about numbers as othernesses. "Other" is not unlike an ordinal form of the phrase "more".   Best, Ben   ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Piat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Peirce Discussion Forum" <peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu> Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 2:28 PM Subject: [peirce-l] Re: The Guerri graph about some sign relations. Dear Ben, Wilfred-- Since much of this discussion has focused on the issue of nominal (categorical) and ordinal (sequential) distinctions, it occurs to me to mention that "an other" and "another" can (I think) be sometimes used to emphasize this distinction. "Another" is sometimes used to emphasizes a reference to something that is a second,  further or additional  something;   whereas,  "an other"  is sometimes used to place more emphasis upon the distinctiveness between two somethings.  For example if I wanted  a second helping of food I might ask for "another" helping, where as if I wanted a different type of food I might ask for "an other"  serving or entree. I may be wrong about the above and mention it not to dispute anyone's anyone's intepretation of these _expression_, but merely suggest that the question at the heart of this discussion is indeed a deep one and not merely question of diction.   In what sense Peirce's categories represent nominal verses ordinal modes of being remains unclear to me.  Perhaps his categories hold the key to riddle of quality verses quantity as well oridinal vs cardinal numbers. I guess my point is that for me this discussion of what mode of being are signs has been very helpful to me.  Not for any definitive conclusion that have been reached but for the issues that have been raised.   For example, I'm just now wondering if there is some value in considering the parallels between Firtness and quality,  Secondness and quantity, and Thirdness and sequence   --- self,  an other, another. Otherness in itself may be adequate to account for quantity in as much as the notion of "and" seem implicit in the notion of "otherness"  as for example a self "and" and an other self constitutes otherness.  So that quantitity is implicit in other-others.    Likewise time as Peirce oft cited examplar of Thirdness par excellence carries within it the notion of sequence or order among others. Just wondering. Cheers, Jim Piat --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com