Re: SUO: Re: Re: Monosemy, Semantics, and Natural Language
John,
I'm a bit curious about your comment on "signs":
>
>>Danny,
>>
>>Instead of using the terms "word" or "concept",
>>I would prefer to talk more broadly about "signs".
>>
>>Every word or concept is a sign, but so are many
>>manifestations such as smoke (which "means" fire)
>>or a weather vane (which indicates the direction
>>of the wind). There are an enormous number of
>>different kinds of signs, and they can have
>>different meanings to different interpreters.
>> . . . .
I have always made a distinction in my ontology
between "evidence" (a phenomenon that suggests
other phenomena or the presence of a certain object)
and a "sign" which is a physical object or phenomenon
created by an intelligent entity with the purpose
of representing something other than itself.
To be sure, a smoke signal sent up by a person
would be a "sign" in this terminology, but not the
smoke rising from an unintentional fire --
or even from a campfire.
Since every physical phenomenon (including light
given out or reflected from a physical object) is
evidence of something or other, using any old piece
of evidence as a "sign" would seem to reduce that
word to vacuity. Is this really the usage in
vogue with semiotitians? If so, how is it
distinguished from "evidence"?
Pat
=============================================
Patrick Cassidy
MICRA, Inc. || (908) 561-3416
735 Belvidere Ave. || (908) 668-5252 (if no answer above)
Plainfield, NJ 07062-2054
internet: cassidy@micra.com
=============================================