Talk:Semiotic square

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is Greimas's square really derived from the Aristotelian square? The example's logical structure is instead that of the Boolean square of opposition.

A	E
I	O

Aristotelian: A & E can't both be true. I & O can't both be false. So there are 8 distinct options for compounding: A, I, E, O, A-or-E, I-&-O, T, & F.

Boolean: A & E can both be true. I & O can both be false. And 16 distinct options are produced for compounding.

The example:

masc.	fem.
~fem.	~masc.

allows the Boolean-style square's full 16-fold of resultant distinct options, not merely the Aristotelian 8. It makes no difference if you arrange it like so,

masc.	~fem.
fem.	~masc.

you still get 16:

Example's semiotic square's options for compoundings:
strictly masc. or strictly fem.	masc. & ~fem. (strictly masc.)	fem. & ~masc. (strictly fem.)	masc. & ~masc. (or {fem. & ~fem.}, etc.)  (tautologously false)
masc. or fem. or both (not neuter)	masc.	fem.	masc. & fem. (hermaphrodite)
~fem. or ~masc. or both (not hermaphrodite)	~fem.	~masc.	~masc. & ~fem. (neuter)
masc. or ~masc. (and {fem. or ~fem.}, etc.) (tautologously true)	masc. or ~fem. or both (not strictly fem.)	fem. or ~masc. or both (not strictly masc.)	neuter or hermaphrodite

The Tetrast 15:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)