Universa Philosophia

THIRDLY I infer that all adjective names are syncategorematic terms; substantives however are categorematic terms. This second part of the inference is easily granted by those who think only distributive terms are syncategoremata, and it is proved: because categorematic is perfectly significative, or predicable, because category signifies predication, but all substantive names signify perfectly and are predicable, therefore they are categorematic terms. But against the first part of the inference the Summulists make an attack in close array, for whom it is common that syncategorematic terms are omnis, nullus, aliquis: because by themselves alone they do not signify, and need conjunction with others, as omnis homo. But I confirm the inference first from the etymology of names: for syncategorematic (according to Calepino) is consignificative, that is, signifying with another, but every adjective term is consignificative, because it signifies together with the substantive, therefore every adjective is syncategorematic. Secondly, because an adjective term signifies as imperfectly by itself alone as the syncategoremata omnis, nullus; for just as when this word nullus is heard, no perfect sense is formed unless homo is added, so when the word albus is heard. Wherefore the authors of the royal art, lib. 3, rightly say that a substantive name is: That which signifies by itself alone in speech; but an adjective, that which cannot stand by itself alone in speech.

You will say that categorematic terms signify the thing of some category or predicament, but syncategorematic terms do not. On the contrary, first, because chymera is a categorematic term, and does not signify the thing of any category; similarly Deus. Secondly: because omnis, nullus would not be syncategoremata, which signify co-predications; but nullus does not signify the predication of any category with which it makes a co-predicament.

But let us hear Soto, 1 part of the introduction, chap. 8, note 1, asserting that a categorematic term is that which signifies something or some things; a syncategorematic one, that which signifies only in some way. From this definition the Toletan one differs little, lib. 1. cap. 12. On the contrary, nullus according to their view is a syncategorematic term, and it signifies some things, therefore. I prove the minor, because it signifies nullity in a subject, just as caecus blindness. Then sapiens according to their view is a categorematic term, and it signifies in some way, therefore; I prove the minor in this proposition hoc factum est sapiens, where sapiens does not signify wisdom existing in the deed, but the manner in which the deed was done, and it sounds this deed was done wisely. Likewise nullus, omnis, although they are syncategoremata, do not signify in some way. For they do not signify a mode of a thing. But if aliqualiter is taken for secundum quid, certainly omnis and nullus are as absolutely significative as albus: especially omnis, which signifies not only some things but even all things.

Villalpandus, lib. 1, 2 part, cap. 3, says that a categorematic term is: that which can be an entire predicate in a proposition, as homo; but syncategorematic, that which together with another is a predicate in a proposition. A more plausible definition, because a syncategorema is a co-predication. But it does not please, both because only complex terms would be syncategorematic, because a co-predicate has two parts of the predicate signified by two terms, for example Petrus est homo iustus: homo iustus would be a categorema, because it includes two co-predicates. Secondly, because nullus, aliquis, omnis, are syncategoremata, and can be an entire predicate. For example: Homo confuse cognitus est aliquis, carentia omnis rei est nullus, aut nullum; Deus, et creatura sunt omnia.

Therefore a syncategorematic term is an adjective name, but a categorematic one a substantive. You will say, categorematicus is categorematic, and it is an adjective: therefore. I distinguish the major: it is categorematic in syllables and sound, likewise also in signification, by which it signifies all categorematic terms, I concede the major; it is categorematic in mode of signifying and in the thing itself, I deny the major. Just as substantivum signifies a substantive term, although it is itself an adjective name. Nevertheless, so as not to provoke the minds of the Summulists, I say that there are two genera of syncategoremata: one proper, which belongs to a distributive term, as omnis, and to numerals, as duo. The other not so proper (that is, less received), comprehending also all adjective terms. But since all these are syncategoremata, the first have retained for themselves the name common to all, as every cognition is an apprehension of an object, and yet that name is used for simple apprehension.