[Index] [Prev] [Next]

Comments to Semios-L

David Reinheimer :
Re: TUT: 1 synonyms & homonyms;
Tue, 11 Jun 1996 16:23:57 -0700

I was very excited when this project was first introduced because I have
felt for a long time that this kind of synthesis is needed--not only in
semiotics (sorry if that's one of the contentious terms) but also in
literature, where much theory seems to be a restatement of ideas using
different frames and different terms.

        Unfortunately, I am a complete tyro a "semiotics."  While I can
recognize the names Katya cites below, the terms mean little by
themselves.  My suggestion would be, rather than simply to list terms, to
provide some kind of definition (preferably from the original theorist,
although, as I am presently studying Bakhtin, I can understand the
problems involved with that).  Another suggestion would be to start with
(again for neophytes, unless of course I'm the only one on the list) a
bibliography of the basic works where these terms are discussed, so that
the less experienced can get an idea of how these terms were originally used.

Have a good day!
Dave

On Tue, 11 Jun 1996, Katya Mandoki wrote:

> To open the discussion, we may have three levels of proximity:  a) =
> (very close proximity, almost synonimity) b)
> +/- ( relatively significant proximity) and c) NO= (no significant
> proximity).  Without forcing ourselves to be too exact and precise, I
> believe +/- may be good enough. We won't be able to work with perfect
> identities.
>
> oh my god...
 [stuff deleted, see original message, EP]
> EEK! The field IS thorny, muddy, swampy, full of mosquitos & snakes.
> I got stuck and all bitten. Anyone willing to follow?
> katya

[Index] [Prev] [Next]

Comments to Semios-L