Shape

93 There Is No Vocabulary—Well, Almost
Even inscriptions of different atomic characters may have common parts so long as no such part is
an inscription in the scheme; that is, atomic inscriptions need be discrete relative to the notation
in question only, as the ‘‘a’’ and the ‘‘e’’ [below] are atomic and discrete in a scheme that recognizes
no proper part of either as an inscription.
Goodman uses the vocabulary
as an illustration. The two letters are relatively discrete—there’s no E in A, nor A in E—
so the shape
contains an A and an E even though they split an I between them. The I isn’t relatively
discrete with respect to A and E, so it’s not in the vocabulary. But I’m free to augment
the vocabulary with another shape
that meets Goodman’s standard. Only now the shape
is either A and E, or A, þ, and E. The þ shares parts with A and E that are distinct
and aren’t recognized in the vocabulary. So it’s OK. The expression
A þ E ¼ AE
makes sound visual sense—whatever else it might mean
Is this a mistake? The symbols A, E, and þ may be the problem. It’s no big deal to trace
smaller A’s in A—A is just the same as the Y in Evans’s shape—and in fact, I showed
this earlier in the introduction, dividing the shape