The Commens Dictionary

Quote from ‘The Logic of Relatives’


A relative […] may be defined as the equivalent of a word or phrase which, either as it is (when I term it a complete relative), or else when the verb “is” is attached to it (and if it wants such attachment, I term it a nominal relative), becomes a sentence with some number of proper names left blank. A relationship, or fundamentum relationis, is a fact relative to a number of objects, considered apart from those objects, as if, after the statement of the fact, the designations of those objects had been erased. A relation is a relationship considered as something that may be said to be true of one of the objects, the others being separated from the relationship yet kept in view. Thus, for each relationship there are as many relations as there are blanks. For example, corresponding to the relationship which consists in one thing loving another there are two relations, that of loving and that of being loved by. There is a nominal relative for each of these relations, as “lover of –,” and “loved by –.” These nominal relatives belonging to one relationship, are in their relation to one another termed correlatives. In the case of a dyad, the two correlatives, and the corresponding relations are said, each to be the converse of the other. The objects whose designations fill the blanks of a complete relative are called the correlates. The correlate to which a nominal relative is attributed is called the relate.

CP 3.466
‘Relate’ (pub. 11.09.14-12:57). Quote in M. Bergman & S. Paavola (Eds.), The Commens Dictionary: Peirce's Terms in His Own Words. New Edition. Retrieved from
Sep 09, 2014, 09:23 by Mats Bergman
Sep 11, 2014, 12:57