🚀 go-pugleaf

On 28 Mar, 15:42, "Tron" <tronf...@frizurf.no> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> "Newberry" <newberr...@gmail.com> skrev i meldingnews:cc5d5507-7fa0-44da-be55-98f994f0d447@v35g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Hi, unlike in logic where we have the dichotomy signifier - referent,
> > Ferdinand de Saussure aparently proposed a trichotomy
>
> > signifier - signfified - referent
>
> > where the signfied is the mental image of the referent - the actual
> > physical object. Where can I read more about this?
>
> That was a very foreshortened version of the historyof semiotics.
> FdS actually proposed the two-part - dyadic - model you refer to initially.
> The three-part - triadic - model was suggested by C.S. Peirce.
>
> Dragndrop your three key words (correctly spelled) into google,
> that shold give you oodles of hits.
>
> I thought that the so-called Ogden's triangle of word, concept and object
> was the standard linguistic model these days:

Not of linguistics, rather of philosophy of language on a side, and
semiotics (or semiology, as we tend to say in Europe) on the other. De
Saussure is the father of linguistics: something like, the study of
language as spoken by people and groups of people across space and
time.

> There is a dog, and our
> concept of doggity, and then various words for that concept, like "dog,
> "hound", "bitch"... "hund", "chien", "canis"....
>
> Which one is it logic lacks? Objects? Concepts? Terms?

As logic is abstract, there is no interest in "objects". And formal
logic is not even interested in "concepts".

-LV