Talk:Semiotic theory of Charles Sanders Peirce

message: Some emphasis on terminological issues to help beginners avoid needless confusions. The Tetrast 20:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial notes

message: Thanks for trying to help, but the Commens Dictionary of Peirce's Terms should not be confused with any Commons dictionary. It's got its own Website and everything, check it out http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/dictionary.html
The word "commens" itself is Peirce's word for that which he also called the "commind". Basically it's com- + mens or "mind".The Tetrast 15:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Commens Dictionary of Peirce's Terms

message: Hi!  I was just reviewing Semiotic elements and classes of signs (Peirce).  It's very good work and you clearly have a lot of expertise on the subject.  However, my concern is that some of the content may have been taken from another Wikipedia page or other material available on the web.  What are the external sources of the article?  Wikipedia articles are licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License which means they may be copied, but must be attributed, meaning we might have to link back to the original article/its history, or do a history merge (by this point, that seems improbable).  And copyrighted material on the web may not be used in most cases.
Cheers!
— madman bum and angel 16:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only administrators can perform history merges.  I think the link to the original article should suffice for attribution, but I'll ask around.  Thank you!  — madman bum and angel 17:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The main external sources were the Commens Dictionary of Peirce's Terms, and ITS definitions, I should say, consist entirely in quotations from C.S. Peirce (b. 1839, d. 1914) himself. My definitions are not copied and pasted from there. Also I did use a long quote from Peirce, near the beginning. I don't think that there should be a problem there, but I'll inquire and I should be able to say by tonight or tomorrow. The Tetrast 17:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  Now that I think about it, some of my phraseology in the definitions of rheme, dicisign, argument, are so close to Peirce's, that I should footnote to the sources. I'll do that tonight (I'm at work right now) and review more generally. But it's still a matter of sentence clauses rather than longer passages. The Tetrast 18:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: If you copy something from one wikipedia page to another, you are supposed to say so in the edit summary; and if you forget then you are supposed to either say so in a subsequent edit summary or on the talk page. The idea is to fulfill the GFDL requirement for attribution in a  reasonable way. Wikipedia is the largest and most significant GFDL copyrighted item in existence and since the issue has never been tested in court, it is expected that Wikipedia's customary practices will be influential if not defining in this regard. WAS 4.250 06:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Copied from section "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_Tetrast#Semiotic_elements_and_classes_of_signs_.28Peirce.29 Semiotic elements and classes of signs (Peirce)]" at the Tetrast's User Talk page, in order to help meet attribution requirements for the article.''' 

message: The Tetrast 10:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: '''The above discussion on attributions should be continued below here. Thank you.'''

message: I used to do that too, being used to it from composers, but I'm just passing on that tidbit of custom that someone told me was done here.  Maybe it's in the style sheet somewhere, I don't know, I never bothered to look it up.  But it does get a bit cluttered when people feel compelled to put the dates in on every first mention of a biographical name, which was starting to happen at one time.  By the way, it does say in the style sheet to use endashes "–" = "–" between the dates.Armand Boisblanc 23:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: (Birth–Death) Dates

message: I should have checked a long time ago. There's always a problem across browsers. But I simply had no idea what difficulties Mozilla has with centering and widths. All fixed up now. The Tetrast 01:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tables now look right in Mozilla/Netscape

message: I liked the article. But after eBook export found it difficult to read, as the first text part was squeezed between the two upper boxes. Might be better (for the printed version too) to move the "reference" box (style of citation) to the end of the article. Or at least under the "Context" box.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeTigre (talk • contribs) 05:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I used a different solution - moved the semiotics template downward. This really is a Peirce article and I first named it "Semiotic elements and classes of signs (Peirce)" but somebody deleted the "(Peirce)" recently. The Tetrast (talk) 19:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Setup

message: I am trying to relate the quote of Peirce given with the text that follows:
 Namely, a sign is something, A, which brings something, B, its interpretant sign 
 determined or created by it, into the same sort of correspondence with something, C,
 its object, as that in which itself stands to C. (Peirce 1902, NEM 4, 20–21).
The punctuation and style of the sentence make it ambiguous and opaque rather than elucidatory.  The word "it" occurs in it four times, increasing the ambiguity each time. Would the following for instance be a correct rephrasing: 
 a sign, A, brings B (its interpretant sign - determined/created by it) 
 into the same sort of correspondence with C (its object) as that in 
 which A stands to C. 
IMO the quote should either be deleted, as it doesn't really help ther reader's understanding, or a modern English phraseology/grammatical "translation" be used, or a brief simple explanation provided that eliminates its internal referencing.
LookingGlass (talk) 12:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simply put .. 

message: , my gob is smacked by your erudition, but:  as a general reader, if I am ever to use any of Peirce's neologisms I will need to know how to pronounce them.  That's asking you to add a new dimension to the article, but its utility is thus restricted therewithout. Errantius (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation