Talk:Semeiotic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
[edit] Semeiotic redirect here, why?
Semeiotics refer to studies about sign and symptoms in medical sciences.
[edit] Notes & Queries
Jon Awbrey 14:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merge with Semiotics?
Should this article be merged with Sign Relations or Semiotics? I see the need to distinguish Pierce from say, Sassure, but this article is rather lacking on its own. --Mabisa 13:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Or maybe limit it to a "vocabulary" notice. All points related to Peirce's Semeiotics are explained elsewhere. -- Typewritten 07:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Semeiotics is just another way of spelling semiotics, and Peirce was a co-founder of the science (however you want to spell it). I agree with you two, they ought to be merged. I think the intention here is to distinguish between Peirce's work and the general theory, but the proper place to make that distinction is not in an article with a slightly different spelling for the same science. A search for semeiotics should redirect to the semiotics page, or vice versa. Any of Peirce's work which would not now be considered as belonging to the science of semiotics surely belongs in the Charles Sanders Peirce article. Peirce's work which would be regarded as belonging to the science of semiotics surely belongs to the general semiotics article. -- Plotinus 19:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
