Among scenic arts, ballet is the most difficult to describe and analyse. The most familiar semiotic trichotomy icon, index, symbol can deal with conventional non-verbal signs used in pantomime, but it fails to explain the moving body meaningfully without the references to libretto, music, costumes, and decorations. In his letters to Lady Welby, C.S. Peirce was developing an expanded model of 28 classes of signs. The changing terminology attracted my interest, especially because the new terms precisely captured the essence of bodily signs. Instead of symbols, there are famisigns – general and familiar. These are culturally shared non-verbal gestures, catalogues of poses, positions, and movements of classical ballet, and also original plastics invented by contemporary choreographers. Using Husserlian terminology, famisigns are designed for physical bodies, Körper, but on the stage they are performed by Leib – by dancers living their personal lives which are inscribed on their bodies. The notion of actisign accommodates those intangible signs of Leib. As the actisign ‘brutely acts on the person’ (CP 8.355), the viewer can feel the dancer’s emotion viscerally. Potisigns (the former icons) are merely possibilities. Peirce calls them also ‘tone’ and ‘mark’. Either of these designations describes well the individual manner of performing famisigns. A trichotomy of the final interpretants accommodates the diversity of the viewer’s experience. Relying on the internal logics of scenic art and personal experience of watching ballet, the author discusses whether 28 ballet signs are possible and whether we need all of them to interpret ballet performances.