(1) The term, both the spoken and the mental one, is divided in still another way. For some terms are categorematic, others are syncategorematic. Categorematic terms have a definite and fixed signification. For instance, the name ‘man’ signifies all men, and the name ‘animal’ signifies all animals, and the name ‘whiteness’ signifies all whitenesses.
(2) But syncategorematic terms, such as ‘every’, ‘none’, ‘some’, ‘whole’, ‘besides’, ‘only’, ‘insofar’ and the like, do not have a definite and fixed signification. Neither do they signify any things distinct from the things signified by categoremata. Indeed just as, in Arabic notation,1 zero put by itself signifies nothing, but when added to another digit makes the latter signify,2 so [too] a syncategorema does not signify anything, properly speaking, but rather when added to another [term] makes it signify something, or makes it supposit in a determined way3 for some thing or things, or exercises some other function with respect to the categorema.
(3) Thus, the syncategorema ‘every’ does not have any fixed significate. But when added to ‘man’, it makes the latter stand or supposit actually, that is, confusedly and distributively,4 for all men. When added to ‘stone’, however, it makes the latter stand for all stones. And when added to ‘whiteness’, it makes the latter stand for all whitenesses. And just as for the syncategorema ‘every’, so we have to hold the same thing analogously for the others, although distinct jobs belong to distinct syncategoremata, as will be shown for certain [syncategoremata] below.5
(4) If someone quibbles that the word ‘every’ is significative, [and] therefore signifies something, it has to be said that it is not called “significative” because it determinately signifies something, but rather because it makes [something] else signify or supposit or stand for something, as was explained. And just as the name ‘every’ determinately and fixedly signifies nothing [whatever], according to Boethius’ manner of speaking,6 so [too] for all syncategoremata and for conjunctions and prepositions generally.
(5) The situation is different, however, for certain adverbs. For some of them do determinately signify things that categorematic names signify, although they convey [those things] by another mode of signifying.
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 3 · Contents · Chapter 5 →
Footnotes
-
‘Arabic notation’ = algorismo. That is, so called “Arabic numerals.” ↩
-
Better, “affects the latter’s signification.” The other digit (unless it too is a zero) has a signification of its own. The point also applies to categoremata and syncategoremata. The latter do not make the former signify, as though categoremata did not already have a signification of their own. Syncategoremata only affect the signification of categoremata. ↩
-
This just means “in a definite way.” It is not a reference to “determinate” supposition as defined in Ch. 70, below. ↩
-
See Ch. 70, below. ↩
-
The editors refer to Summa logicae II, 4. But in fact much of the rest of Part II also in effect treats this topic. ↩
-
Boethius, In librum De interpretatione, ed. 2a, IV, PL 64, cols. 552f. ↩