John, Good observations. Of course, I realize the difference there between firstness and secondness. But always useful to be more explicit. The point is that many languages, and some more than others, encode phenomenological categories directly in their languages.
The Russian examples illustrate the linguistic concept of Aktionsart. All languages (because of the real world) use different verb forms to represent different types of event classification. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexical_aspect This is also in a sense an aspect of phenomenology. So my point is that it is more interesting to find empirical support for Peirce’s ideas than to worry excessively about slight differences in meaning. This is a form of essentialism which is an unproductive route of inquiry. Being clear about what Peirce said is of course important. But after a certain point he was not sure himself and he worked hard to find empirical data to support what he was saying. Arguing back and forth about chapter and verse reminds me of the kinds of theological debates I am happy to have put behind me. I don’t mind so much, because I always learn something. But a pragmaticistic debate needs to have more examples from real data, more rubber meets the road kind of thing. (Or, it could also be mathematical proofs depending on the area of debate) Peirce was after all a superb field researcher. Photometric researches for example brings math, the three -ductions and field research together nicely. Dan > That is an interesting example. But I would ask about the "something" that > is entering perception. Is it a pure quality, such as the color blue (a > quality)? That would be a Firstness, but as soon as they say "a blue > partch), it's already a Secondness. > > Since I don't know Piraha, I'll ask about Russian, a less exotic language > whose tenses are quite different from English. The verb pit' (to drink) is > imperfective. It has a past (I drank), a present (I am drinking), and a > future (I will drink). > > But the verb vypit' (drink up) is perfective. It has a past (I drank up) and > a future (I will drink up). But it doesn't have a present tense because the > time between "I am drinking" and "I drank up" is an instant. > > Question: How immediate is the Piraha notion of immediacy? Do they allow > enough time for a sentence? > > John > > _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
