Re: [PEIRCE-L] Parts of Propositions (was qualisigns)

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

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 
> 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 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Parts of Propositions (was qualisigns)

[Jerry LR Chandler]

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  
> 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 


> 
> Regards,
> 
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt 
>  - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt 
> 
> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 3:07 PM 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Parts of Propositions (was qualisigns)

[John F. Sowa]

Jerry and Jon,
In mathematics -- including mathematical logic -- the
notation is absolutely precise.  Two different notations that are
isomorphic (one-to-one mappings in both directions) have identical
semantics, independent of any words used to describe them.

JLRC> I suggest that CSP was consistent in his deployment of the
triadic grammatical relatives (subject, copula, predicate).

JAS> 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.
For Peirce (as for every mathematician), the notation is
primary, and the words are useful only for explaining the notation to
students.  The first-order subset of Peirce's algebra of 1885 and the
first-order subset of EGs  (Alpha + Beta) have identical semantics.  To
understand exactly what Peirce intended, ignore the English words.  Just
translate his explanations to the algebra or the EGs.   The words are
useful only for teaching students.
Mathematicians  (as well as
scientists and engineers who use mathematics) never talk about charity --
except for human charity in being sympathetic with students who are dong
their best..  
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 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 .

[PEIRCE-L] Parts of Propositions (was qualisigns)

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

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.

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)


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.

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)


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.  These are abstractive and concretive subjects,
respectively, while the predicate itself is signified by the syntax of
their arrangement and connections.

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 3:07 PM Jerry LR Chandler <
jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com> wrote:

> List:
>
> JAS: For example, my speculative grammar does not include qualisigns at
> all, for the reason that I already stated--a quality in itself cannot
> *represent *something else as its object, it can only *present *itself.
>
>
> The sign of an object is represented by qualisigns as metrics of
> existence.  These are grammatical predicates by the following logical
> assertion:
>
> The sin-sign has the qualisigns of x1, x2, x3,…as properties or attributes
> as determined by metrics or immediate sensory experiences.
>
> The assertion: "The index of the sin-sign (subject of a proposition)
> asserts the metrics of the descriptive attributes of the sin-sign” if the
> arguments are founded on the bedrock of CSP writings, ie, the chemical
> sciences.
>
> The assertion: "The grammar of an argument connects the syntax of the
> indices with the sin-sign and its predicates with a necessary copula” is
> necessary to relate atoms to molecules.
>
> I suggest that CSP was consistent in his deployment of the triadic
> grammatical relatives (subject, copula, predicate).
>
> Can these notions be embedded into your careful scientific readings of CSP
> texts?
>
> Obviously, these mappings are remote from the compositional mathematics
> associated with a particular modern geometric form of category theory.
>
> But, please note that CSP was expert on the simple metrics of matter as
> “Sums” and “Products” necessary for the spontaneity of relations among
> relatives, such as 2 H2 + O2  —<  2 H2O.
>
> And, also please note, that modern geometric forms of category theory
> depends on structural mathematical developments grounded in Principia
> Mathmetica.  Obviously, CSP’s work was decades before these structural
> mathematical developments.  CSP used chemical category theories to assert
> his syntax through indices and the copula necessary to generate the
> dicisign, did he not?
>
> 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 .