Bibliography

P of L

An argument is a sign whose proper interpretant represents it as a sign. In order that the proper interpretant may do this, the argument must have separate parts representing the sign[,] its object & its interpretant.

A dicisign is a sign whose proper interpretant represents the object of the sign to be different from the sign itself, but ignores the distinction between the sign and its interpretant. In order that the proper interpretant may distinguish between the object and the sign itself, it is requisite that the sign should have separate parts representing the sign and its object. [—] The part representing the sign itself is, in propositions, the predicate, while the part representing the object is called the subject.

…icons, that is signs whose reference to their proper objects is due to characters of the signs by themselves, so that the signs would possess these characters just the same even if their proper objects had no existence…

...a sign which is of the nature of a general type, law, or habit, which I will call a legisign. Thus, the word ‘the’ occurs, on the average, twenty times on an English page (more or fewer times, according to the style), and all these are so many occurrences of one and the same word. In that sense a word is a ‘legisign.’ But a legisign can only exists in such occurrences, which I term its replicas; and each of these replicas is a suisign.

…signs are divisible, first, according to their modes of being, as objects; secondly, according to the modes of their references to their objects; thirdly, according to the modes of their references to their interpretants. In the first way of dividing them, signs are either qualisigns, or signs that are abstract qualities (in a wide sense), or suisigns, signs that are essentially existent as individual objects or events, or legisigns, signs that [are] general types, laws, or habits.

A dicisign is a sign whose proper interpretant represents the object of the sign to be different from the sign itself, but ignores the distinction between the sign and its interpretant. In order that the proper interpretant may distinguish between the object and the sign itself, it is requisite that the sign should have separate parts representing the sign and its object. [—] The part representing the sign itself is, in propositions, the predicate, while the part representing the object is called the subject.

…signs are divisible, first, according to their modes of being, as objects; secondly, according to the modes of their references to their objects; thirdly, according to the modes of their references to their interpretants. In the first way of dividing them, signs are either qualisigns, or signs that are abstract qualities (in a wide sense), or suisigns, signs that are essentially existent as individual objects or events, or legisigns, signs that [are] general types, laws, or habits.

…the word ‘the’ occurs, on the average, twenty times on an English page (more or fewer times, according to the style), and all these are so many occurrences of one and the same word. In that sense a word is a ‘legisign.’ But a legisign can only exists in such occurrences, which I term its replicas; and each of these replicas is a suisign.

A sign is a species under the genus representamen, the definition of which says nothing about a mind. A representamen is an object A, in such a triadic relation to an object, B, for an object C (the italicized prepositions merely indicating a difference between the relations) that it is fit to determine, C, to being in a similar triadic relation to A, and thereby (owing to the peculiar nature of this type of relation,) necessarily to B, for some third object, C’, determined in like manner, and so on ad infinitum.

A rheme is a sign whose proper interpretant ignores all difference between the sign and its object (and a fortiori all difference between the sign and its interpretant)

A sign is a species under the genus representamen, the definition of which says nothing about a mind. A representamen is an object A, in such a triadic relation to an object, B, for an object C (the italicized prepositions merely indicating a difference between the relations) that it is fit to determine, C, to being in a similar triadic relation to A, and thereby (owing to the peculiar nature of this type of relation,) necessarily to B, for some third object, C’, determined in like manner, and so on ad infinitum.

…signs are divisible, first, according to their modes of being, as objects; secondly, according to the modes of their references to their objects; thirdly, according to the modes of their references to their interpretants. In the first way of dividing them, signs are either qualisigns, or signs that are abstract qualities (in a wide sense), or suisigns, signs that are essentially existent as individual objects or events, or legisigns, signs that [are] general types, laws, or habits.

A dicisign is a sign whose proper interpretant represents the object of the sign to be different from the sign itself, but ignores the distinction between the sign and its interpretant. In order that the proper interpretant may distinguish between the object and the sign itself, it is requisite that the sign should have separate parts representing the sign and its object. [—] The part representing the sign itself is, in propositions, the predicate, while the part representing the object is called the subject.

…symbols, of which these characters that make them refer to their proper objects consist in laws or habits by virtue of which they will, under suitable conditions, be interpreted as referring to those objects.

A thing is whatever that is real as denoted by a subject of a proposition in such an analysis of the proposition that all general characters are separated from the subject [and] thrown into the predicate.