a question regarding the immediate object
Edit: worked this out on my own...mostly.
In addition to the first ten sign types, Peirce elaborated certain possible combinations for immediate objects--descriptive (1), denominative (2), and distributive or copulative (3). These three form a trichotomy just like the others, where a descriptive states the characters of its object, a denominative points it out, and a copulant brings it into certain logical relations (e.g. "if...then...", "...is...", etc.). He further states, and here he suggests that he is aware of the contentiousness of the claim, that because the Object determines the Sign, it is impossible to have a descriptive famisign (=legisign or type) or a denominative famisign. Legisigns can only be copulative. Given that all conventional terms are of the nature of legisigns, as are all true symbols (which he seems to distinguish from, say, a common noun, such that a symbolic rheme would have to be predicative, rather than a general subject), what then is the possible object of, you know, regular nouns and verbs? If an abstract noun like "beauty" is a descriptive, what's the distinction between that and the linguistic sign that represents it?
I am very confused, probably because I lack logical or philosophical training. Any help is appreciated.
In addition to the first ten sign types, Peirce elaborated certain possible combinations for immediate objects--descriptive (1), denominative (2), and distributive or copulative (3). These three form a trichotomy just like the others, where a descriptive states the characters of its object, a denominative points it out, and a copulant brings it into certain logical relations (e.g. "if...then...", "...is...", etc.). He further states, and here he suggests that he is aware of the contentiousness of the claim, that because the Object determines the Sign, it is impossible to have a descriptive famisign (=legisign or type) or a denominative famisign. Legisigns can only be copulative. Given that all conventional terms are of the nature of legisigns, as are all true symbols (which he seems to distinguish from, say, a common noun, such that a symbolic rheme would have to be predicative, rather than a general subject), what then is the possible object of, you know, regular nouns and verbs? If an abstract noun like "beauty" is a descriptive, what's the distinction between that and the linguistic sign that represents it?
I am very confused, probably because I lack logical or philosophical training. Any help is appreciated.