ce List
Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2014 4:55 PM
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:6919] Re: Being Trivially A Sign
Dear E, lists-
Den 21/09/2014 kl. 20.01 skrev Edwina Taborsky
:
My view is that morphology = semiosis;
I know. It is n
Gary F - see my replies:
- Original Message -
From: Gary Fuhrman
To: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee ; 'Peirce List'
Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2014 4:17 PM
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [biosemiotics:6919] Re: Being Trivially A Sign
1) GF: Edwina, you're ignoring (o
Dear E, lists-
Den 21/09/2014 kl. 20.01 skrev Edwina Taborsky
mailto:tabor...@primus.ca>>
:
My view is that morphology = semiosis;
I know. It is not mine.
F
-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-
Edwina, you're ignoring (or denying?) the distinction between a process or
connection that may be taken as semiosic and one that actually functions
semiotically (i.e. must be taken as a sign if it is to be recognized at
all).
This kind of distinction can be made at many levels. For instance, c
