Directory:Logic Museum/sandbox
MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Monday November 25, 2024
Jump to navigationJump to search
Unde sciendum quod nominum quaedam sunt absoluta mere, quaedam sunt connotativa.
Nomina mere absoluta sunt illa quae non significant aliquid principaliter et aliud vel idem secundario, sed quidquid significatur per illud nomen, aeque primo significatur, sicut patet de hoc nomine 'animal' quod non significat nisi boves, asinos et homines, et sic de aliis animalibus, et non significat unum primo et aliud secundario, ita quod oporteat aliquid significari in recto et aliud in obliquo, nec in definitione exprimente quid nominis oportet ponere talia distincta in diversis casibus vel aliquod verbum adiectivum.
Latin | English
|
---|---|
C. 10. ON THE DIVISION OF NAMES INTO PURELY ABSOLUTE AND CONNOTATIVE | |
After concrete and abstract names have been discussed, now we have to speak about another division of names which scholastics frequently use.
Wherefore, you should know that certain names are 'purely absolute', certain are 'connotative'. Purely absolute names are those which do not signify something principally and something else (or the same thing) secondarily, but rather, whatever is signified by that name, is equally signified primarily, thus the name 'animal' clearly does not signify anything but cattle, donkeys and men, and so for other animals, and does not signify one primarily and another secondarily in such a way that something has to be signified in the nominative case and another in an oblique case, and in the nominal definition it is not necessary to put such distinct terms in different cases, or to use some participle. | |
Indeed, properly speaking, such names do not have a nominal definition, since, properly speaking, there is one definition of a name that has a nominal definition, explicating the nominal essence, thus it is evident that of such a name there are not different nominal definitions having distinct parts, of which one signifies something that is not conveyed in the same way by some part of the other expression.
| |
But, as far as their nominal definition is concerned, such names can be explained in some way by several expressions that do not signify the same things by their parts. And on that account none of them is properly a nominal definition. |