The triadic theory of signification taught by Aristotle has often been confused with later theories, notably that of Locke, and has come under a Wittgensteinian critique. If words signify meanings in the mind, questions arise as to how my concepts are like or unlike yours as well as how such concepts relate to things in the world. It has been said that the central problem Descartes bequeathed to philosophy was: How do we get out of our minds? If knowledge bears on mental events, if they are what we first and chiefly know, their relation to things outside the mind becomes problematic. On this view, modern philosophy can look like a suite of unsuccessful ontological proofs – not of the existence of God, but of the existence of something non-mental. It would be ironic indeed if Aristotle, and Thomas following him, were engaged in the problematic of modernism.
As a reading of the following selection will show, neither Aristotle nor Thomas holds that meaningful words arrest our attention at mental events. Rather, concepts or what Aristotle here calls ‘passions of the soul’ are pure means of knowing, not primary objects of knowledge. The triadic account of significant speech is the product of reflection on how we know. If we did not first know something other than knowing, there would be no knowing to know. The first and direct object of thinking is the nature of sensible reality. Reflection on knowing reveals the extraordinary character of human knowing.
One of the features of human knowing is that it knows sensible singulars in a universal way. Sensing bears on the singular as such, but the mark of intellectual knowledge is that it knows things universally, as to what they are, as to their essences or natures. The Problem of Universals is a logical problem that has a long history stemming from the Neoplatonist Porphyry’s Isagoge or Introduction to the Categories of Aristotle. Before discussing the five universals, genus, species, difference, property and accident, Porphyry mentions three questions which make up the classical problem of universals. Are they real or mere figments of the imagination? If real, are they material or immaterial? If immaterial, are they associated with material things or do they exist apart? Boethius, in commenting on Porphyry, began the long tradition of treating each of these questions.
In the passage that follows, almost as an aside, Thomas gives his own solution to the problem of universals. For him, as we have seen in Chapter 3, universals like genus and species attach themselves in the manner of accidents to natures as known. They are second intentions. Indeed, the subject matter of logic, for Thomas, is precisely second intentions. The following discussion of significant speech, of noun and verb, conveys well Thomas’s understanding of logic.
COMMENTARY ON ARISTOTLE’S ON INTERPRETATION
Preface
1. As the Philosopher says in On the Soul 3, there is a twofold operation of intellect, one which is called the understanding of indivisibles by which the intellect apprehends the essence itself of a thing, the other the operation of intellect composing and dividing. A third operation, namely, reasoning, is added because reason proceeds from what is known to inquire into the unknown. Of these operations, the first is ordered to the second, because there can be composition and division only of apprehended simple things. The second is ordered to the third, since it is necessary that from a known truth, to which the intellect assents, one goes on to gain certainty about some unknown things.
2. Since logic is called rational science it is necessary that its consideration turn on things which pertain to the three operations of reason. Aristotle treats of the things which pertain to the first operation of intellect, that is, of things which are conceived by simple understanding, in the Categories; of those which pertain to the second operation, namely the affirmative and negative speech, the Philosopher treats in the book On Interpretation. Of things which pertain to the third operation he treats in the Prior Analytics and those which follow on it, in which the simple syllogism is treated, and then of the different kinds of syllogism and argument by which reason proceeds from one thing to another. According to the forgoing order of the three operations, therefore, the Categories is ordered to On Interpretation which is ordered to Prior Analytics and the books that follow.
3. The book that we have in hand is called Perihermeneias, that is, On Interpretation. According to Boethius, an interpretation is a significant voiced sound which signifies of itself, whether it be complex or incomplex. Hence, conjunctions and prepositions and the like are not called interpretations because they do not of themselves signify anything. Similarly, voiced sounds signifying naturally and not with the intention or imagination of signifying something, such as the sounds of brute animals, cannot be called interpretations. He who interprets intends to expound something. Hence only nouns and verbs and sentences are called interpretations and they are treated in this book. But noun and verb seem to be rather the principles of interpretation than interpretations themselves. For he seems to interpret who expounds something as true or false, therefore only enunciative speech in which the true or false can be found is called an interpretation. Other speeches, such as the optative and imperative, are rather ordered to expressing desire than to interpreting what is in the mind. Therefore this book is entitled On Interpretation as one should say ‘On Enunciative Speech’, in which the true or false is found. The noun and verb are treated here only insofar as they are parts of speech, for it is proper to any science to treat the parts of its subject. It is evident then to which part of philosophy this book pertains, and why it is needed and how it relates to the other books of logic.
Lesson 1
First we must define the terms ‘noun’ and ‘verb’, then the terms ‘denial’ and ‘affirmation’, then ‘proposition’ and ‘sentence’.
1. The Philosopher provides a preface to this work in which he singly expounds the things which are to be treated in the book. Because all sciences first set forth what pertain to principles and the parts of compound things are their principles, therefore he who would treat of the enunciation must set down its parts. Hence he says that one must first constitute, that is, define, what is a noun and what a verb. In Greek this reads, ‘first ought to be posited’, but this means the same thing, for because demonstrations presuppose definitions, from which they conclude, fittingly they are called positions. Therefore he sets down definitions only of the things of which he must treat, because from definitions other things are known.
2. Should anyone ask, given the fact that he spoke of simples in the Categories, what need there is that noun and verb should be discussed again here, it ought to be answered that there is a threefold consideration of things simply said. One, insofar as they simply signify simple understandings, and thus the consideration of them falls to the Categories; two, insofar as they are parts of the enunciation, and thus they are treated in this book under the formality of noun and verb, in whose definitions it is mentioned that they signify something with or without time, and the like, which pertains to the notion of speech insofar as they constitute the enunciation; third, they are considered insofar as the order of syllogism is constituted of them, and thus they are treated under the formality of terms in the Prior Analytics.
3. It can also be asked why he puts aside other parts of speech and treats only of noun and verb. The response to this is that because he intends to treat of the simple enunciation, it suffices that he treat only those parts of the enunciation which are needed to form a simple enunciation. For a simple enunciation can be made up of noun and verb alone but not of the other parts of speech without these; therefore, it was sufficient for him to treat these two. For it could be said that only nouns and verbs are principal parts of speech. Under nouns pronouns are included because, though they do not name the nature, none the less they determine the person, and they can be put in the place of nouns: under the verb, participle is included, which consignifies time, although it has things in common with the noun. The others are linkings of the parts of speech, signifying the relation of one to another rather than parts of speech: just as nails and the like are not parts of the ship but join the parts of the ship.
4. These things having been set down as principles, he adds things that also pertain to his principal intention, saying afterwards he will treat what negation and affirmation are. They are parts of the enunciation, not integral parts like the noun and verb (otherwise it would be necessary that every enunciation be composed of affirmation and negation) but subjective parts, that is, species. This is indeed presupposed now but will be made manifest later.
5. But a doubt can arise: since the enunciation is divided into categorical and hypothetical, why does he make no mention of these, as he does of affirmation and negation? And it can be said that the hypothetical enunciation is composed of several categoricals. Hence they differ only as the one and the many.
Or it could be better said that the hypothetical enunciation does not contain absolute truth, knowledge of which is required for demonstration, to which this book is principally ordered, but signifies something true on a supposition, and this does not suffice in demonstrative sciences unless they are confirmed by the absolute truth of the simple enunciation. Therefore Aristotle sets aside the treatment of hypothetical enunciations and syllogisms. But he adds, and enunciation, which is the genus of affirmation and negation, and speech, which is the genus of enunciation.
6. If one asks further why he says nothing more of voiced sound, it should be said that the voiced sound is something natural, hence it pertains to the consideration of natural philosophy, as is clear in On the Soul 2 and the final chapter of On the Generation of Animals. Hence it is not properly the genus of speech, but is assumed for the constitution of speech, as natural things for the constitution of artefacts.
7. But the order of the enunciation seems preposterous, for affirmation is naturally prior to negation, and enunciation is prior to both as their genus, and consequently speech is prior to enunciation. But it should be said that because he began to enumerate from the parts, he proceeds from parts to whole. He puts negation, which contains division, before affirmation which consists in composition, because division is closer to parts but composition is closer to the whole.
Or it could be said, according to some, that he puts negation first because in things which can be and not be, non-being which negation signifies is before being which affirmation signifies. However, since they are species equally dividing the genus, they are naturally simultaneous, hence it does not matter which of them he puts first.
Lesson 2
Those things which are in speech are the notes of passion of the soul, and what is written are notes of what is spoken.
Just as writing is not the same for all, neither is speech. But that of which these are notes, passions of the soul, are the same in each, and the things of which they are likenesses are also the same. All these things have been discussed in what has been said of the soul and belong to another consideration.
1. Having completed his preface, the Philosopher turns to achieving his project, and because he promised to speak of complex and incomplex significant voiced sounds, he begins with a treatment of the signification of voiced sound. After that, he will turn to the voiced sounds he promised to define, ‘By a noun we mean…’1 Concerning the first, he does two things: first, he discusses what the meaning of voiced sound is; second, he shows the difference between the meaning of complex and incomplex voiced sounds, ‘As there are in the mind thoughts…’2 He subdivides the first task into two, the first being to set forth the order of the meaning of voiced sounds, the second, to show of what kind that meaning is, whether natural or conventional, ‘Just as all men have not the same writing…’
2. Notice that he proposed three things with respect to his first task, from one of which a fourth is suggested. For he mentions writing, speech and the affections of the soul, by which things are understood. For an affection is the effect of some agent, and thus the passions of the soul have their origin in things themselves. If there were some solitary or feral man, the passions of the soul would be sufficient for him; by them he would be conformed to things in order that he might have knowledge of them. But because man is naturally political and social, there is need for one man to make his conceptions known to others, which is done with speech. So significant speech was needed if men were to live together. Which is why those of different tongues do not easily live together. Again, if man employed only sense knowledge, which looks only to the here and now, there would suffice for his living with others the kind of significant sound other animals use, who make their conceptions known to one another by certain voiced sounds. But because man employs intellectual knowledge as well, which abstracts from the here and now, his concern is not only for things present in place and time, but also things distant in place and future in time. Hence in order that a man might manifest his conceptions to those distant in place and who will come to be in future time, the use of writing was necessary.
3. Because logic is ordered to the acquisition of knowledge, the meaning of speech, which is immediate to those conceptions of intellect, belongs to its principal consideration. But the signification of script, as more remote, is not its business but rather grammar’s. That is why in explaining the order of signification he does not begin with script but with speech, the meaning of which he first explains when he says, ‘spoken words are the signs…’, that is, signs of those affections or passions which are in the soul. He speaks therefore as if concluding from the foregoing because he said above that we must define noun and verb and the others, but these are significant speech. Therefore we must explain the signification of speech.
4. He employs this way of speaking, ‘the things which are in speech’, and not in speeches that he might move smoothly from what he has said before. For he said that we must speak of noun and verb and other like matters. But these have a threefold existence. In one way, in the conception of the intellect; in another, in vocal expression; third, in writing. Therefore he says, ‘those things which are in speech’, as if to say, nouns and verbs and the others following, which are only in speech, are signs. Or, because not all speech is significant, and of this some is naturally significant, which is far from the notion of noun and verb and the others, in order that he might adjust what he says to the things he intends, he says therefore, ‘those things which are in speech’, that is, which are included in speech, as parts in a whole. Or, because speech is something natural, but noun and verb signify by human convention which attaches to the natural thing as to matter, as the form of the bed to wood; therefore, to indicate nouns, verbs and the rest, he says, ‘those things which are in speech’, as he might say of the bed, those things which are in wood.
5. With respect to ‘of those things which are passions of the soul’, it should be noted that by passions of the soul is commonly meant affections of sense appetite, like anger, joy and such like, as is said in Ethics 2.5. And it is true that certain voiced sounds of men naturally signify such passions, as the groan of the sick, as he says in Politics 1.1. But his present concern is the voiced sounds significant by human convention, so passions of the soul must mean here conceptions of the intellect, which nouns and verbs and speech immediately signify, according to the opinion of Aristotle. But it is not possible that they should immediately signify the things themselves, as is clear from their mode of signifying. For ‘man’ signifies human nature in abstraction from singulars, so it cannot immediately signify a particular man. That is why the Platonists held that it signifies some separate idea of man. But because this does not really subsist as abstracted, in Aristotle’s view, but is only in the intellect, it was necessary for Aristotle to say that speech signifies the conceptions of the intellect immediately and, by their mediation, things.
6. Because it is not customary for Aristotle to call conceptions of the intellect passions, Andronicus held that this book was not Aristotle’s. But it is manifest that all operations of the soul are called passions in On the Soul 1.1. Hence the conception of the intellect can be called a passion. Or because our understanding is not without a phantasm, which is not without bodily passion; hence in On the Soul 3.4, the Philosopher calls imagination the passive intellect. Or because by extending the term ‘passion’ to mean any receiving, the understanding of the possible intellect itself can be called a kind of receiving [quoddam pati], as it is in On the Soul 3.3. He uses the term ‘passions’ instead of intellections both because it is due to a passion of the soul, such as love or hate, that a man wishes to signify his inner concept by speech to another, and also because the signification of speech is referred to the conception of the intellect insofar as it arises from things by way of some impression or passion.
7. Second, when he says, ‘and written words are the symbols of spoken words’, he turns to the signification of writing. According to Alexander he does this to manifest the preceding opinion by way of similitude, so the sense would be: the things which are in speech are the signs of passions of the soul, just as script is the sign of speech. Which he makes clear by what follows, when he says, ‘Just as all men…’, taking this as a sign of the foregoing. That writing signifies speech is clear from this that just as there are different languages among different peoples, so there is different writing. According to this explanation, therefore, he does not say ‘and letters of the things that are in speech’, but ‘those things which are written’, because they are called letters as spoken as well as written. although most properly as written; as spoken they are called elements of speech. But because Aristotle does not say, ‘just as those things which are written’, but gives a continuous narration, it is better to say, as Porphyry explains, that Aristotle proceeds further to complete the order of signification. For afterwards he had said that the nouns and verbs which are written are signs of the nouns and verbs in speech.
8. Then, when he says, ‘Just as all men…’, he shows the differences between the signifying and signified in the foregoing with respect to being natural or not. He does three things in this regard. First, he gives a sign by which it is clear that neither speech nor writing signifies naturally. What naturally signifies is the same with all men, but the signification of writing and speech, with which we are concerned, is not the same with all peoples. No one ever doubted this with respect to writing, of which not only the reason for signifying is conventional but whose very formation is due to art. Speech is formed naturally and for that reason some wondered if it did not signify naturally. But Aristotle here determines by the similitude of writing that just as it is not the same among all, so neither is speech. Clearly, then, neither writing nor speech signifies naturally, but by human institution. Those speech sounds that signify naturally, such as the groan of the sick and the like, are the same with all.
9. Second, when he says ‘but the passions of the soul…’, he shows that the passions of the soul exist naturally, like things, by this that they are the same with all. Just as the passions of the soul are the same with all (of which first, that is, of which first passions speech is a note or sign; for the passions of the soul are referred to speech, as the first to the second, for words are only spoken in order to express the interior passions of the soul), and the things are the same, that is, with everyone, of which – that is, of which things – these, namely passions of the soul are likenesses, It should be noticed that writing is called the note, that is, the sign of speech, and similarly speech of the passions of the soul, but the passions of the soul are called likenesses of things. And this because things are only known by the soul by a likeness of them existing either in sense or intellect. Writing is a sign of speech and speech of the passions in such a way that there is no reason in likeness, but only in convention, as with many other signs: as the trumpet is the sign of battle. In the passions of the soul there must be recognized likeness as the reason for signifying things, because they designate them naturally, not conventionally.
10. Some wish to object to the claim that the passions of the soul, which speech signifies, are the same with all men. First, because there are different opinions about things and thus the passions of the soul (or thoughts) do not seem the same in everyone. To which Boethius replies that Aristotle here calls passions of soul the conceptions in which intellect is never deceived, and that is why its concepts must be the same in all because if someone disagrees with the truth he does not understand. But because there can be falsity in the intellect as it composes and divides, though not as it knows the quiddity, that is, the essence of the thing, as is said in On the Soul 3.5, what is said here has to be referred to the simple conceptions of the intellect (which incomplex speech signifies), which are the same in everyone. Because, if someone truly understands what a man is, whatever else he apprehends he will not understand man. These simple conceptions of the intellect are what speech first signifies. Hence it is said in Metaphysics 4 that the account which the word signifies is the definition. And he significantly says, of which first these are the signs, to refer to the first conceptions first signified by speech.
11. But some still object concerning equivocal terms in which there is not the same passion or concept signified by the same word. Porphyry replies to this that one man who utters a word refers it to one conception of intellect, and if someone else to whom he speaks understands something else, the one who speaks, explaining himself, will bring it about that the concept refers to the same thing. But it is better to say that the intention of Aristotle is not to assert the identity of conceptions of the soul by comparison to speech, such that of one word there will be one conception, since words are different among different peoples; but he intends to assert the identity of the conceptions of the soul with reference to things, which he also says are the same for all.
12. Third, when he says ‘This matter…’, he excuses himself from a further consideration of these matters, because he has already said in On the Soul what the passions of the soul are, and how they are likenesses of things. This is not a logical topic but one belonging to natural philosophy.
Lesson 3
As there are in the mind thoughts which do not involve truth or falsity, and also those which must be either true or false, so it is in speech. For truth and falsity imply combination and separation. Nouns and verbs, provided nothing is added, are like thoughts without combination or separation; ‘man’ and ‘white’, as isolated terms, are not yet either true or false. In proof of this, consider the word ‘goat-stag’. It has significance, but there is no truth or falsity about it, unless ‘is’ or ‘is not’ is added, either in the present or some other tense.
1. The Philosopher, having treated the order of signification of speech, turns now to the different significations of speech, some of which signify the true and the false while others do not. He does two things in this regard, first, he states the difference, and, second, he manifests it: ‘For truth and falsity…’ Since conceptions of intellect are in the order of nature preambles to speech, which is spoken in order to express them, therefore, by likeness of a difference according to intellect, he assigns a difference with respect to the meanings of speech, so that this manifestation is not only a simile, but also from the cause which the effect imitates.
2. It should be noted, therefore, as was said at the outset, that there is a twofold operation of intellect, as is taught in On the Soul 3.5, in one of which is found the true and false, and in the other not. This is what he means when he says that sometimes in the soul there is understanding without the true and false, and sometimes you necessarily have one or the other. Because significant speech is fashioned to express conceptions of the intellect, in order for the sign to be conformed to the signified, it is necessary that it be as it is with significant speech, some without the true and false, some with it.
3. Then when he says, ‘For truth and falsity…’, he manifests what he said. And first with respect to what he said about intellect, second, with respect to what he said of the assimilation of speech to intellect: ‘Nouns and verbs…’ In order to show that the intellect is sometimes without the true and false and sometimes with one or the other of these, he says first that truth and falsity follow on composition and division. It must be understood that one of the two operations of intellect is the understanding of indivisibles, insofar as the intellect understands absolutely the quiddity or essence of a thing in itself, for example what is man or what is white or the like. The other operation of intellect occurs when it composes and divides such simple concepts. He says, then, that it is in the second operation of intellect, that is, in composing and dividing, that truth and falsity are found, implying that they are not found in the first operation, as indeed is taught in On the Soul 3.5.
4. There seems to be a doubt about this first point: since division comes about by resolution to indivisibles or simples, it seems that just as in simples there is neither truth nor falsity, neither is there in division. But it must be said that because conceptions of the intellect are likenesses of things, the things of intellect can be known and named in two ways, in themselves, and according to the notions of the things of which they are likenesses. Just as the image of Hercules taken by itself is said to be and is called bronze, but insofar as it is a likeness of Hercules it is called man. So too, if we should consider things of intellect in themselves, there is always composition where there is truth and falsity, which is never found in intellect unless intellect compares one simple concept with another. But if it is referred to things, sometimes it is said to be composition, sometimes division: composition when the intellect compares one concept to another by seeing a conjunction or identity of the things of which they are likenesses, division when it so compares one concept to another that it apprehends them to be different things. In this way too in speech affirmation is called composition, insofar as it signifies a conjunction on the part of things, and negation is called division insofar as it signifies a separation of things.
5. But it seems that truth does not consist in composition and division alone. First, because things are called true or false, as we speak of true and false gold. And it is also said that being and true are convertible. Hence it seems that the simple concept of intellect, which is the likeness of the thing, does not lack truth and falsity. Moreover, the Philosopher says in On the Soul 2.30 that sensation of proper sensibles is always true, but the senses do not compose or divide; therefore, it is not only in composition and division that truth is found. Again, there is no composition in the divine intellect, as is proved in Metaphysics 12, yet the highest and first truth is there; therefore, truth is not only in composition and division.
6. Ad [1] For light on this we should consider that truth is found in something in two ways, in one way, as in that which is true, in another, as in speaking or knowing the true. Truth is found in that which is true both in the case of simples and of composites, but as in the one saying or knowing the true, it is only found according to composition and division. Which is clear from the following.
7. The true is the good of intellect, as the Philosopher says in Ethics 6.2. Hence, anything is called true with reference to intellect. Words are referred to the intellect as signs and to things as that of which concepts are likenesses. But we should note that some things are referred to intellect in two ways. In one way, as measure to the measured, and in this way natural things are referred to the human speculative intellect. So the intellect is called true insofar as it is conformed to the thing, and false insofar as it is discordant from the thing. The natural thing is not called true with reference to our intellect, as some ancient natural philosophers held, thinking the truth of things to lie only in this, that they were seen; on that basis contradictories would be simultaneously true, because there are different opinions about contradictories. Some things are called true or false with reference to our intellect, not essentially or formally, but causally, insofar as they are apt to cause a true or false estimate of themselves. In this way gold is called true or false. But things are compared to intellect in another way, as measured to their measure, as is clear in practical intellect, which is the cause of things. Hence the work of the artisan is called true insofar as it attains to the notion of art and false insofar as it fails to.
8. Since all natural things are referred to the divine intellect, as artefacts to art, each thing is called true insofar as it has its proper form, according to which it imitates the divine art. For false gold is true fool’s gold. It is in this way that being and true are convertible, because every natural thing is conformed to the divine art because of its form. Hence the Philosopher in Physics 1.15 calls form something divine.
9. Ad [2] Just as a thing is called true with reference to its measure, so are both sense and intellect, whose measure is the thing outside the soul. Sensation is said to be true when by its form it is conformed to the thing existing outside the soul. In this way is to be understood the claim that sensation of the proper sensible is true. In this way, the intellect grasping the quiddity does not compose or divide yet is always true, as is said in On the Soul 3.5. But it should be noted that although sensation of the proper object is true, it does not know this to be true, for it cannot know its relation of conformity to the thing, it just grasps the thing. But intellect can know such a relation of conformity, and therefore only intellect can know truth. Hence the Philosopher says in Metaphysics 6 that truth is only in the mind, namely in knowing truth. To know this relation of conformity is nothing other than to judge that it is or is not so in things. Which is to compose and divide. Therefore, intellect knows truth only by composing or dividing by its judgement. Which judgement, if it is consonant with things, will be true, for example when the intellect judges the thing to be as it is, or not to be as it is. It is clear, then, that truth and falsity as in the knower and speaker involve composition and division. This is how the Philosopher speaks here. Because speech signifies thought, speech is true when it signifies true thinking, and false when it signifies false thinking, although speech, insofar as it is a certain thing, is called true as other things are. So the statement, ‘Man is an ass,’ is true speech and a false sign, but because it is a sign of the false, it is called false.
10. Ad [3] It should be kept in mind that the Philosopher speaks of truth here as it pertains to the human intellect, which judges of the conformity of things and intellect by composing and dividing. But the judgement of the divine intellect on this is without composition and division, because, just as our intellect understands material things immaterially, so the divine intellect knows composition and division simply.
11. When he says, ‘Nouns and verbs…’, he manifests what he said of the similarity of speech and intellect. First, he manifests the claim, second he proves it with a sign, ‘In proof of this…’ From what has gone before, he concludes that since truth and falsity in the intellect are linked with composition and division, it follows that nouns and verbs, taken separately, are assimilated to the intellect which is without composition and division, as when ‘man’ or ‘white’ is spoken and nothing is added, there is not yet the true or false; but when ‘is’ or ‘is not’ is added later, it will become true or false.
12. It is not a counter-example that an answer to a question can be given with a single word, as when to the question, ‘What is swimming in the sea?’ one answered, ‘Fish.’ For the verb in the question is understood in the response. And just as the noun taken by itself does not signify the true or false, neither does the verb. Nor are verbs of the first [amo] and second person [amas] or impersonal verbs [pluit] counter-examples, because their subjects are understood and thus although there is no explicit composition, it is implicit.
13. When he says, ‘In proof of this…’, he gives an example of a compound noun, namely goat-stag, which is made up of goat and stag and is the Greek tragelaphos, for tragos is goat and elaphos stag. Such nouns signify something, namely certain simple concepts, although of composed things. Therefore they are not true or false except when ‘is’ or ‘is not’ is added, which express a judgement of intellect. To be or not to be can be added either in the present tense, which is actually to exist or not, and this is existence simply speaking, or according to past or future time, which is not existence simply but in a certain respect, as when we say something was or will be. It is noteworthy that he uses as an example a word signifying what is not to be found in the nature of things, in which falsity immediately appears, but which cannot be true or false without composition and division.
Lesson 4
By a noun we mean a sound significant by convention, which has no reference to time, and of which no part is significant apart from the rest. In the noun ‘fairsteed’, the part ‘steed’ has no significance in and by itself, as in the phrase ‘fair steed’. Yet there is a difference between simple and composite nouns; for in the former the part is in no way significant, in the latter it contributes to the meaning of the whole, although it has not an independent meaning. Thus in the word ‘pirate-boat’ the word ‘boat’ has no meaning except as part of the whole word.
The limitation ‘by convention’ was introduced because nothing is by nature a noun or name – it is only so when it becomes a sign; inarticulate sounds, such as those which brutes produce, are significant, yet none of them constitutes a noun.
The expression ‘not-man’ is not a noun. There is indeed no recognized term by which we may denote such an expression, for it is not a sentence or a denial. Let it then be called an infinite noun.
The expressions ‘of Philo’, ‘to Philo’, and so on, constitute not nouns, but cases of a noun. The definition of these cases of a noun is in other respects the same as that of the noun proper, but when coupled with ‘is’, ‘was’ or ‘will be’, they do not, as they are, form a proposition either true or false, and this the noun proper always does, under these conditions. Take the words ‘of Philo is’ or ‘of Philo is not’; these words do not, as they stand, form either a true or a false proposition.
1. After the Philosopher determines the order of signification of speech, he turns to a discussion of significant sounds themselves. And because he is chiefly interested in the enunciation which is the subject of this book, and in each science we must have foreknowledge of the principles of the subject, he must accordingly first determine the principles of the enunciation, and second of the enunciation itself.1 He subdivides the first task into two, for first he determines the principles as the materials of the enunciation, that is, its integral parts, and second he determines the formal principle, that is, speech, which is the genus of the enunciation.2 Accordingly, he first treats of noun, which signifies the substance of the thing, and then of the verb, which signifies an action or passion proceeding from the thing.3 As for the noun, he does three things: first, he defines it; second, he explains the definition: ‘In the noun “fairsteed”…’; third, he excludes certain things which do not save the definition of noun perfectly: ‘The expression “non-man”…’
2. Notice first that a definition is called a term [terminus] because it includes the thing totally, such that nothing of the thing is left outside the definition to which the definition does not apply, nor anything else within the definition, to which the definition belongs.
3. Five things are put into the definition of the noun: first, it is called significant sound by way of genus, by which the noun is distinguished from other sounds which are not speech. For speech is a sound from the mouth of the animal, sent forth, with some imagination, as is said in On the Soul 2.18. He adds a first difference, significant, to differentiate it from non-significant sounds, whether written or articulated, just as blifty, whether an unwritten and unarticulated sound, is like ssssss, done for nothing. Because he has already dealt with the meaning of speech above, he can conclude that a noun is significant sound.
4. But since sound is a natural thing, and the noun is not something natural but established by human convention, it seems that sound should not be given as the genus, since it is natural, but rather as sign, which is from convention, as who should say: noun is a vocal sign, as a dish is more appropriately defined as a wooden vessel, than if one should say that it is wood formed into a vessel.
5. But it should be replied that artificial things are indeed in the genus of substance because of their matter, but in the genus of accident because of their form, for the forms of artificial things are accidents. Therefore, the noun signifies an accidental form concretized in a subject. But since their subject must be put into the definition of accidents, it is necessary that if any names signify an accident abstractly that the accident be put directly into their definition, as a genus and the subject obliquely, as a difference, as when it is said that snubness is the curvature of the nose. But with nouns that signify accidents concretely, the matter or subject is put in their definitions as genus, and the accident as a difference, as when it is said that snub is a curved nose. If then the names of artificial things signify accidental forms as concrete in natural subjects, it is more appropriate that the natural thing be put into their definition as the genus, as we say that the plate is shaped wood, and similarly that the noun is significant sound. It would be otherwise if the names of artificial things were taken as signifying these artificial forms abstractly.
6. Third, he gives the second difference, ‘by convention’, that is, by human institution proceeding from the agreement of man. In this the noun differs from naturally signifying sounds, like the groan of the sick or the calls of brute animals.
7. Fourth, he gives the third difference – namely, ‘which has no reference to time’ – by which the noun differs from the verb. But this seems to be false, because the nouns ‘day’ and ‘year’ signify time. It should be responded that time can be considered in three ways: first, time itself; second, as a kind of thing, and then it can be signified by a noun like any other thing; in another way, it can be considered as measured by time as such: and since motion is what is principally measured by time, and motion includes action and passion, the verb which signifies action or passion signifies with time. But substance considered in itself, as signified by noun or pronoun, is not as such measured by time, but only insofar as it is in motion, as it is signified by the participle. So verb and participle signify with time, but not the noun and pronoun. Third, the very relation of measuring time can be considered, which is signified by adverbs like ‘tomorrow’, ‘yesterday’ and the like.
8. Fifth, he gives the fourth difference, when he adds ‘of which no part is significant apart from the rest’, that is, from the whole noun, but it is compared to the signification of the noun as it is in the whole. The signification is, as it were, the form of the noun, but no separated part has the form of the whole, as the hand severed from man does not have the human form. In this the noun is distinguished from speech, whose parts signify separately, as when we say, ‘just man’.
9. When he says, ‘In the noun “fairsteed”…’, he manifests the definition, and first with respect to its ultimate particle; second, with respect to its third, ‘The limitation by convention…’; with respect to the third particle ‘which has no reference to time’, will be discussed when verb is. On the first point, then, he does two things: he manifests the proposal by composite nouns; then he shows the difference between simple and composite nouns: ‘Yet there is a difference…’
First he shows that the separate part of a noun signifies nothing, making use of composite nouns in which this is less easily seen. In a noun like ‘fairsteed’, the part ‘steed’ does not signify by itself as it does in ‘fair steed’. The reason is that one name is imposed to signify one simple understanding, and that from which the name is imposed to signify differs from what the name signifies, as ‘stumbling-block’ is imposed from stumbling over a block, but that is not what it means, for it signifies the concept of some thing. Hence the part of the composite name is imposed to signify a simple concept not to signify a part of the composite conception from which the name is imposed to signify. But speech signifies the composite conception itself, hence a part of speech signifies part of the composite conception.
10. When he says, ‘Yet there is a difference…’, he shows the difference between simple and composite nouns, and says that it is not with simple nouns as it is with composite, because in simple nouns the part is in no way significant, neither in truth nor in appearance, but in composite nouns it has the appearance of signifying. Yet no part of it signifies, as was said of the noun ‘fairsteed’. The reason for the difference is that just as the simple noun is imposed to signify a simple concept, so too it is imposed to signify from some simple concept, but the composite noun is imposed from a composite conception, hence the appearance that its part signifies.
11. When he says, ‘The limitation “by convention”…’, he manifests the third part of the definition, and he says that a noun is said to signify by convention because nothing is naturally a noun: it is a noun because it signifies, but it does not signify naturally, but from convention. That is why he adds, ‘it is only so when it becomes a sign’, that is, when it is imposed to signify. That which signifies naturally does not come to be, but naturally is a sign. This is what he means when he speaks of ‘inarticulate sounds’ as of the brutes, which cannot be signified by writing. They can be called sounds rather than speech, since some animals have no voice because they lack lungs, but by certain sounds naturally signify their own passions, but none of these sounds is a noun. From which it is clear that the noun does not signify naturally.
12. There has been a diversity of opinion about this. For some said that nouns in no way signify naturally, nor does it matter which things are signified by which nouns. Others said that names signify completely naturally, as if nouns were natural likenesses of things. Some said that nouns do not naturally signify in this respect, that their signification is not from nature, as Aristotle holds here, but they naturally signify in this respect that their signification is congruent with the natures of things, as Plato said. Nor does it matter that one thing is signified by many names, because there can be many likenesses of the same thing, and similarly from its different properties many names can be given to one thing. He should not be understood to mean that the sounds of animals do not have names, for they are named by certain nouns, as the roar of the lion and the lowing of cattle, but that the sound itself is not a noun.
13. When he says, ‘The expression “not-man”…’, he excludes some things from the range of the meaning of noun: first, the infinite noun, then the cases of the noun. He says that ‘not-man’ is not a noun, since every noun signifies some definite nature, like ‘man’, or a definite person, like the pronoun, or both, like ‘Socrates’. But when I say ‘not-man’, it does not signify a definite nature or person. It is imposed from the negation of man, which can be said equally of non-being. Hence ‘not-man’ can be said indifferently of that which is not in nature, as if we said, ‘The chimera is a not-man,’ and of that which is in nature, as when we say, ‘The horse is a not-man.’ If it were imposed from privation, it would require at least an existing subject, but because it is imposed from a negation, it can be said of being and of not-being, as Boethius and Ammonius say. Because it can signify in the manner of a noun and function as subject and predicate, there is required at least a thought-of subject.
At the time of Aristotle there was no term for such expressions. For it is not speech, because no part of it signifies separately, which excludes composite nouns too; similarly it is not a negation, that is, a negative sentence, because that adds negation to affirmation, which does not happen here. Therefore he coined a term for such expressions, calling them infinite nouns because of the indefiniteness of signification, as was said.
14. When he says, ‘of Philo’, he excludes the cases of nouns, and says that ‘of Philo’ or ‘to Philo’ and others like them are not nouns, but only the nominative is chiefly called a noun through which the imposition is made to signify something. These oblique forms are called cases of the noun, as if they fall away in a kind of declension from the original nominative, which is called erect because it does not fall. The Stoics said that the nominative is itself a case, and grammarians have adopted this, because it falls or proceeds from the interior conception of the mind. And it is called erect because nothing prevents something from falling and landing on its feet, as the falling knife sticks in wood.
15. When he says, The definition of these cases…’, he shows how the oblique cases relate to the noun, and he says that the definition which the noun signifies is the same in the cases of the noun, with this difference that the noun joined with ‘is’ or ‘will be’ or ‘was’ always signifies the true or false, which does not happen with the cases. Significantly he employed the example of a substantive verb, since there are impersonal verbs which when conjoined with a case of the noun signify the true or false, as when it is said, ‘Poenitet Socratem’,1 because the act of the verb is understood to apply obliquely, as if it were said, ‘Regret has Socrates.’
16. On the contrary, if the infinite noun and the cases are not nouns, the definition of noun is inept, because it applies to these. The response to which is that, according to Ammonius, he defined the noun more generally above and now restricts its signification by subtracting these from it. Or the response could be that the definition given does not apply to these, for the infinite noun signifies nothing definite, nor do the cases of the noun according to the first institution, as has been said.
Lesson 5
A verb is that which, in addition to its proper meaning, carries with it the notion of time. No part of it has any independent meaning, and it is a sign of something said of something else.
I will explain what I mean by saying that it carries with it the notion of time. ‘Health’ is a noun, but ‘is healthy’ is a verb; for besides its proper meaning it indicates the present existence of the state in question.
Moreover, a verb is always a sign of something said of something else, that is, of something either predicable of or present in some other thing.
Such expressions as ‘is not-healthy’, ‘is not-ill’, I do not describe as verbs, for though they carry the additional note of time, and always form a predicate, there is no specified name for this variety; but let them be called infinite verbs, since they apply equally well to that which exists and to that which does not.
Similarly ‘he was healthy’, ‘he will be healthy’, are not verbs, but tenses of a verb; the difference lies in the fact that the verb indicates present time, while the tenses of the verb indicate those times which lie outside the present.
Verbs in and by themselves are substantial and have significance, for he who uses such expressions arrests the hearer’s mind, and fixes his attention; but they do not, as they stand, express any judgement, either positive or negative. For neither are ‘to be’ and ‘not to be’ and the participle ‘being’ significant of any fact, unless something is added; for they do not themselves indicate anything, but simply a copulation, of which we cannot form a conception apart from the things coupled.
1. Having discussed the noun, Aristotle turns now to the verb, and does three things. First, he defines the verb; second, he excludes certain things from the definition of the verb: ‘Such expressions as “is not healthy”…’ He shows the agreement of verb and noun, ‘Verbs in and by themselves…’ As to the first then, having defined the verb, he then goes on to explain it: ‘I will explain…’
2. It should be taken into account that Aristotle, seeking to be brief, does not put into the definition of verb the things common to noun and verb, leaving it to the reader to supply those elements. There are three parts of his definition of verb: the first of which distinguishes the verb from the noun; in this he says that it consignifies time. In the definition of noun it was stated that it does not signify with time. The second part is what distinguishes the verb from speech, when he says, ‘No part of it has any independent…’
3. But since this also occurs in the definition of noun, it seems he should have left it out, just as he does, ‘a sound significant by convention’. To this Ammonius replies that this is put into the definition of noun in order to distinguish the noun from speech which is composed of nouns, as when it is said, ‘Man is an animal.’ Because there are some speeches which are composed of verbs, as when we say, ‘To walk is to move,’ he repeated the particle to distinguish these from the verb. One could answer otherwise that since the verb implies composition, in which the speech signifying the true or false is perfected, the verb has a greater affinity with speech, as being its formal part, whereas the noun is a material and subjective part of speech. So he had to repeat it.
4. The third particle is what distinguishes the verb not only from the noun but also from the participle which signifies with time. Hence he says, ‘Moreover a verb is always a sign of something said of another.’ Nouns and participles can be put in the place of subject and predicate, but the verb is always in the predicate role.
5. But verbs in the infinitive seem counter-examples, for they are sometimes put in the subject position, as when it is said, ‘To walk is to move.’ The response is that verbs in the infinitive mood, when they are put as subjects, have the force of nouns, hence in Greek and in vulgar Latin they take an article like nouns. The reason is that it is proper to the noun to signify something as existing of itself, and it is proper to the verb that it signify an action or passion. But action can be signified in three ways. In one way, as abstracted by itself, as some thing, and thus it is signified by a noun, for example action, passion, walking, running and the like. In another way, by way of action, namely as emerging from a substance and inhering in it as in a subject, and thus it is signified by verbs of the other modes, which are attributed as predicates. But because the very process or inherence of action can be grasped by intellect and signified as a thing, verbs in the infinitive mode, which signify the inherence of action in the subject, can be taken as verbs, by reason of concretion, and as nouns insofar as they signify certain things.
6. It could be objected that verbs of other modes also seem sometimes to occupy the subject position, as when it is said, ‘I run is a verb.’ It should be said that in such a locution the verb ‘I run’ is not taken formally, insofar as its signification refers to the thing, but insofar as it materially signifies that word, which is taken as some thing. Therefore both verbs and other parts of speech when they are used materially, take on the force of nouns.
7. Then when he says, ‘I will explain…’ he explains the definition he has given. First with respect to its consignifying time; second, insofar as he says it is a sign of something said of another. He does not explain the second particle, namely, that no part of it signifies separately, because he has done that already in discussing the noun. He explains what he means by saying that the verb consignifies time with an example, namely ‘running’ which signifies an action, not in the mode of action but in the manner of an existent thing and does not consignify time, because it is a noun. ‘I run’, however, since it is a verb signifying action, consignifies time because it is proper to motion to be measured by time; actions are made known to us in time. It was said above that to consignify time is to signify something measured in time. So it is one thing to signify time principally, as some thing, and thus as a noun, and another to signify with time, which does not belong to the noun, but to the verb.
8. When he says, ‘Moreover, a verb is always a sign…’, he explains the other particle. Note that because the subject of the enunciation is signified as that in which something inheres, when the verb signifies action in the manner of action, of whose notion it is to inhere, it is always placed in the role of predicate and never of subject, unless it is taken with the force of a noun, as has been said. The verb is said always to be a sign of something said of another, both because the verb always signifies that which is predicated, and because in every predication there must be a verb, because the verb implies composition, by which the predicate is composed with the subject.
9. But a doubt arises about what he adds: ‘something either predicable of or present in some other thing’. For something seems to be said of a subject when it is predicated essentially, as ‘Man is animal’, but to be present in a subject when accident is predicated of the subject, as ‘Man is white’. Therefore, if verbs signify action or passion, which are accidents, the consequence is that they will always signify what is said as in a subject. It is pointless, then, for him to say ‘predicable of and present in some other thing’. But because Aristotle uses a disjunction he seems to signify different things by each. Therefore, it can be said that when Aristotle says that the verb is always a sign of something said of something else, this should not be understood as if the things signified by verbs are what is predicated; it is the verbs which are predicated rather than signify predicates. Therefore it is to be understood that the verb is always the sign that some things are predicated, because every predication comes to be through the verb by reason of the implied composition, whether it is predicated essentially or accidentally.
10. Then when he says, ‘Such expressions as “is not-healthy”…’, he excludes certain things from the range of the verb. First, the infinite verb, then verbs of past and future time: ‘Similarly, “he was healthy”…’ He says first that ‘not runs’ and ‘not works’ are not properly called verbs. For it is proper to the verb to signify something in the manner of action or passion, which these expressions do not do, for they remove action or passion rather than signify any definite action or passion. But although they cannot properly be called verbs, some of the things put into the definition of the verb belong to them, the first of which is that they signify time, because they signify to act and to be acted upon, which since they are in time, their privations are too. Hence rest is measured by time, as is said in Physics 4.20, insofar as it is always put in the predicate place like the verb. And this because negation is reduced to the genus of affirmation. Hence just as the verb signifies action or passion, it signifies something as existing in another, so the foregoing expressions signify the removal of action or passion.
11. But someone might object, ‘If the definition of the verb belongs to those expressions, then they are verbs.’ It should be replied that the definition of verb given above is of the verb taken generally, but these expressions are said not to be verbs, because they fall short of the full sense of the term. Nor prior to Aristotle was there a term for this type of expression which differs from verbs, and since they are like verbs in part, but fall short of the definite notion of verb, he calls them infinite verbs. And he gives a reason for the term: each of them can be said indifferently of what is and what is not. For the negative prefix has the force of simple negation, not of privation; privation supposes a definite subject. Verbs of this kind differ from negative verbs because infinite verbs are taken as one expression but negative verbs as having the force of two words.
12. When he says, ‘Similarly “he was healthy”…’, he excludes verbs of the past and present tenses from the verb, and says that just as infinite verbs are not verbs simply, so also ‘will run’, which is in the future tense, or ‘has run’, which is in the past, are not verbs, but cases of verb. And they differ from the verb in this that the verb consignifies present time, but these signify then and later. He significantly says present time and not simply present, lest the present be understood as something indivisible, as the instant is. There is no motion in the instant nor action or passion, but it is necessary to present time that it measures action, which begins and is not yet determined by act. Rightly, then, those words which consignify past and future time are not properly called verbs, for the verb properly speaking signifies acting and being acted upon, that is the verb properly signifies actually acting and being acted upon, which is acting and being acted upon simply speaking; acting or being acted upon in the past or future are such only in a certain respect.
13. Verbs of past and future tense are reasonably called cases of the verb, which consignifies present time, because the past or future are said with reference to the present. For the past is what was present and the future what will be present.
14. Declensions of verbs vary in mode, tense, number and person, but the variation which comes about through number and person does not constitute a case of the verb, because such a variation is not on the side of action, but on the side of the subject, whereas the variation by modes and tenses looks to the action itself, and therefore both constitute cases of the verb. Verbs of the imperative and optative moods are called cases, as are past and future tenses. But verbs of the indicative in the present tense are not called cases, whatever be their person or number.
15. When he says, ‘Verbs in and by themselves…’, he shows the agreement of verbs with nouns, and he does two things: first, he states his intention, second, he manifests it: ‘and have significance…’ First, then, he says that verbs in and by themselves are nouns, which some explain from the verbs which are taken with the force of nouns, as has been said, whether they are of the infinitive mood, as when I say, ‘To run is to move,’ or some other mood, as when I say, ‘I run is a verb.’ But that does not seem to be Aristotle’s intention, because the sequel does not answer to this intention. So it should be said otherwise that noun is taken here as it commonly signifies any expression, hence it is verbs themselves – insofar as they name, that is, signify, to act or to be acted upon – that are included under nouns or names commonly understood. But the noun, insofar as it is distinguished from the verb, signifies the thing in a definite manner, insofar as it can be understood as existing in itself. Hence nouns can function both as subjects and as predicates.
16. When he says, ‘and have significance’, he proves what he has proposed. First, by this that verbs signify something, just as nouns do; second, by this that they do not signify the true or false, any more than nouns do. First he proves the claim that insofar as they signify something, verbs are nouns. It was said above that significant speech signifies concepts. Hence it is proper to significant speech that it generate an understanding in the mind of the hearer. Therefore, in order to show that the verb is significant speech, he assumes that the one who speaks a verb brings about an understanding in the mind of his auditor. To show this, he notes that he who hears rests.
17. But this seems false, because only a complete sentence gives the mind repose, but neither noun nor verb, if taken just as such, do this. For if I say ‘man’, the mind of the listener is in suspense as to what it is I wish to say; if I say ‘runs’, his mind is in suspense concerning what I am saying. But it should be said that there is a twofold operation of intellect, as was pointed out above, and he who speaks a noun or verb just as such brings about an understanding with respect to the first operation, which is its simple conception, and to this degree, the auditor, who was in suspense before the noun or verb was spoken and the saying of it completed, rests. But noun or verb taken just as such do not bring about an understanding with respect to the second operation, which is of the intellect composing and dividing, nor put the mind of the auditor at rest in this regard.
18. He immediately adds, ‘But they do not as they stand yet express any judgement…’ That is, they do not yet signify by way of composition and division, or express the true or false. This is the second thing he intends to prove. And he does so with those verbs which especially seem to signify truth or falsity, namely that verb which is to be, and the infinite verb which is not to be, neither of which taken by itself is significant of truth or falsity in the thing, hence so much less other verbs.
Or this could be understood as said generally of all verbs. For because he said that the verb does not signify whether the thing is or not, he manifests this, saying that no verb is significant of the existence or the non-existence of the thing, that is, says whether the thing is or is not. For although every finite verb implies existence, because to run is to be running, and every infinite verb implies non-existence, since not to run is not to be running, still no verb signifies this whole, namely that the thing is or is not.
19. Consequently he proves this by the verb which especially seems to do so when he adds, ‘For neither are “to be” and “not to be” and the participle “being” significant of any fact.’ It should be known that in Greek it is ‘Not even if you should say bare being itself, for it is nothing.’ To show that verbs do not signify that a thing is or is not, he assumes that which is the fount and origin of existence, namely being, of which he says that it is nothing (as Alexander explains), because being is said equivocally of the ten categories, but every equivocal taken by itself signifies nothing, unless something be added which determines its signification; hence not even ‘is’ itself taken as such signifies that it is or is not.
But this explanation does not seem to fit, both because being is not properly called equivocal, but rather is according to before and after, so that simply said it is understood of that of which it is primarily said, and also because an equivocal expression does not signify nothing but many things, and is sometimes taken for this, sometimes for that. Furthermore, this explanation is not very relevant to his present intention.
Porphyry explains it otherwise, saying that being itself does not signify the nature of anything, as the names ‘man’ or ‘wise’ do, but only designates some conjunction; hence he adds that it consignifies a composition, which cannot be understood without the things composed. But no more does this seem relevant, because if it did not signify some thing, but only a conjunction, it would be neither a noun nor a verb any more than prepositions and conjunctions are.
So it has to be explained differently, as Ammonius says. We are given the reason why ‘being itself is nothing’, that is, does not signify the true or false, when he adds, ‘but it consignifies some composition’. Nor is consignify taken here, as he says, as it was when he said that the verb consignifies time, but it consignifies, that is, signifies with another, namely it signifies a composition joined to another, which cannot be understood without the extremes of the composition. But because this is common to both nouns and verbs, this explanation does not seem to be according to the intention of Aristotle, who takes being to be something special.
20. Therefore, the better to follow the words of Aristotle, consider that he said that the verb does not signify that the thing is or is not, and that being itself does not signify that the thing is or is not. And that is why he says, ‘it is nothing’, that is, it does not signify that something is. But this especially seemed to be the case with what I call being, because being is nothing other than that which is. Thus it seems to signify both the thing, by this that I say ‘that which’, and to be, by this that I say ‘is’. And if this expression being were to signify existence principally, as it does signify the thing which has existence, without any doubt it would signify that something is. But it does not principally signify the composition that is implied in this that I say ‘is’, but it consignifies it insofar as it signifies the thing having existence. Hence such a consignification of composition does not suffice for truth or falsity, because the composition in which truth and falsity consists can be understood only as it joins the extremes of the composition.
21. But if it were said ‘nor existence’ itself as our books have it, the sense is more plain. For that no verb signifies that a thing is or is not, he proves through this verb ‘is’, which taken by itself does not signify that something is, although it signifies existence. And because this existence itself seems a composition, and thus this verb ‘is’ that signifies existence could be seen to signify the composition in which the true and false are, to exclude that he adds that that composition, which this verb ‘is’ signifies, cannot be understood without the components. Because the understanding of it depends on the extremes, which if they are not stated, the understanding of the composition is not complete, so that there might be in it the true or false.
22. Therefore, he says that this verb ‘is’ consignifies composition, because it does not principally signify it but as a consequence, for it first signifies that which comes into the intellect in the mode of actuality absolutely: for ‘is’, stated just as such, signifies to be actual, and therefore signifies in the manner of a verb. Because actuality, which this verb ‘is’ chiefly signifies, is commonly the actuality of every form, either substantial or accidental act, and that is why when we want to signify some form or act actually to be in some subject, we signify it by this verb ‘is’, either simply or in a certain respect: simply, in the present tense, in a certain respect, in the other tenses. Therefore, this verb ‘is’ signifies composition as a consequence.