Re: “On the Paradigm of Experience Appro priate for Semiotic”

* Comments on the Peirce List slow reading of Joseph Ransdell,
   "On the Paradigm of Experience Appropriate for Semiotic",
   http://www.cspeirce.com/menu/library/aboutcsp/ransdell/paradigm.htm

Re: Comments and Questions by Jerry Chandler

As far as grammar goes, I read "semiotic" as formed on the pattern of "logic"
and I read "semiotics" as formed on the pattern of "mathematics".  US speakers
typically abbreviate "mathematics" as "math" while UK speakers call it "maths".
I have no idea what to make of that.

The definition of a sign relation that Peirce gives is highly general.
The concept of determination implied in it is a formal determination,
much like the sense of determination in "x points determine y lines".
It covers all the species of informational and causal determination
that I can imagine, but who knows what species might evolve one day?

Taking the question of "one or many" more substantially than grammatically,
the definition of a sign relation is much like the definition of another
very important species of triadic relations that arises in mathematics,
namely, the axioms that define a mathematical group. They are alike in
the sense that many different sign relations satisfy the definition of
a sign relation, just as many different groups satisfy the definition
of a group.

When it comes to the idiomatic expressions that we can scarcely help using
even in formal definitions, I wouldn't try to make too much hay out of them.

-- 

facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
mwb: http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey
knol profile: http://knol.google.com/k/Jon-Awbrey#
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
polmic: www.policymic.com/profiles/1110/Jon-Awbrey