Re: A-ness, B-ness, C-ness

In the context of triadic relations in general, Peirce provides the
following illustration of the six converses of a triadic relation,
that is, the six differently ordered ways of stating what is
logically the same triadic relation:

| So in a triadic fact, say, the example
|
| A gives B to C
|
| we make no distinction in the ordinary logic of relations between
| the subject nominative, the direct object, and the indirect object.
| We say that the proposition has three logical subjects.  We regard
| it as a mere affair of English grammar that there are six ways of
| expressing this:
|
| A gives B to C
| A benefits C with B
| B enriches C at expense of A
| C receives B from A
| C thanks A for B
| B leaves A for C
|
| These six sentences express one and the same indivisible phenomenon.
| (C.S. Peirce, “The Categories Defended”, MS 308 (1903), EP 2, 170–171).

☞ http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Sign_relation

-- 

academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
_______________________________________________
Inquiry mailing list
[email protected]
http://stderr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/inquiry