(1) You have to know that the name ‘term’ is taken in three senses. In one sense, everything is called a term that can be the copula or an extreme of a categorical proposition (that is, its subject or predicate), or also a determination of an extreme or of the verb [in such a proposition]. In this sense, even a proposition can be a term, just as it can be a part of a proposition. For “‘A man is an animal” is a true proposition’,1 is true. In it, the whole proposition ‘A man is an animal’ is the subject and ‘true proposition’ is the predicate.
(2) In another sense, the name ‘term’ is taken insofar as it is contrasted with ‘expression’.2 In this sense, every non-complex [word] is called a term. I was talking about ‘term’ in this sense in the preceding chapter.
(3) In a third sense, ‘term’ is taken precisely and more strictly for that which, taken significatively, can be the subject or predicate of a proposition. In this sense no verb, conjunction, adverb, preposition or interjection is a term. Many names3 also are not terms [in this sense], such as syncategorematic names.4 For even though such [words] can be the extremes of propositions if they are taken materially or simply,5 nevertheless when they are taken significatively they cannot be the extremes of propositions. Thus the expression “‘Reads” is a verb’ is well-formed and true if the verb ‘reads’ is taken materially. But if it were taken significatively it would be unintelligible. It is the same for such cases as “‘Every” is a name’, “‘Once” is an adverb’, “‘If’ is a conjunction’, “‘From” is a preposition’. The Philosopher takes ‘term’ in this sense when he defines a term in Prior Analytics I.6
(4) Now not only can one non-complex [word] be a term, taking ‘term’ in this [third] sense. A composite of two non-complex [words] — such as the composite of an adjective and a substantive, and even the composite of a participle and an adverb, or a preposition with its object — can also be a term, just as it can be the subject or predicate of a proposition. For in the proposition ‘Every white man is a man’, neither ‘man’ nor ‘white’ is the subject, but rather the whole [expression] ‘white man’. Likewise ‘Running quickly is a man.’7 Here neither ‘running’ nor ‘quickly’ is the subject, but rather the whole [expression] ‘running quickly’.
(5) You have to know that not only can a name taken in the nominative be a term, but an oblique [form] can also be a term. For it can be the subject of a proposition, and a predicate too. Yet an oblique [form] cannot be a subject with respect to just any verb. For ‘A man’s sees the ass’ is not wellformed, although ‘A man’s is the ass’8 is well-formed. But how and with respect to which verbs an oblique [form] can be the subject, and with respect to which ones not — that belongs to the grammarian, whose job is to consider the constructions of words.
Translation by Paul Vincent Spade, CC BY 4.0. Source: Indiana University ScholarWorks. Changes: format conversion only (PDF to Markdown; footnotes, italics and paragraph numbers kept; margin line numbers and page headers dropped).
← Chapter 1 · Contents · Chapter 3 →
Footnotes
-
I have punctuated the sentence according to modern philosophical quotationconventions. It should be noted that mediaeval Latin had no quotation marks, so that the claim that the proposition ‘A man is an animal’, and not a name of that proposition, is the subject of the sentence is easier to see in the Latin. (It is also easier to see in English is you think in terms of spoken rather than written language.) Please note that this is not a use/mention confusion on Ockham’s part. The theory of “material supposition,” to be discussed in Ch. 64, below, makes all the necessary distinctions. ↩
-
‘expression’ = oratio. The term is a piece of mediaeval logical vocabulary meaning any word-string. ↩
-
“Names” in mediaeval grammatical theory included what we would call adjectives as well as nouns. Sometimes pronouns were also included. ↩
-
Ockham is probably thinking of quantifiers like ‘every’. ↩
-
That is, in material of simple supposition. See the discussion in Chs. 63–64, below. ↩
-
Aristotle, Prior Analytics I, 1, 24a16–18. ↩
-
‘Running quickly is a man’ = Currens velociter est homo. The sense is just ‘A man is running quickly’, but Ockham wants to turn it around to get the composite of participle and adverb in subject-position. ↩
-
‘A man’s is the ass’ = Hominis est asinus. The sense is that the ass belongs to a man. The previous sentence, ‘A man’s sees the ass’ = Hominis videt asinum, which makes no sense at all, either in Latin or in English. ↩