Universa Philosophia

But this opinion does not please me, because it is against the doctrine of Aristotle, who holds that every proposition consists of a finite verb, and they themselves admit that it is against the consensus of the ancients. The reason is at hand: because a negation attached to the union or copula of the verb makes the proposition negative, as Petrus non currit. Behold for what reason the verb cannot be made infinite: because the word non cannot be taken except negatively. To the first. It is answered by denying the antecedent, because the negation affecting the verb denies it and affirms nothing else, as ne currat, non currit. To the second it is answered that men could have used infinite verbs as they use a noun and a participle, but that they did not wish to, and rightly so. For propositions denying and making infinite would be confused. Nouns and participles produce no confusion, because although they are affected by negation, they leave room for the union to be affirmed, and thus it is clear what is denied and what is made infinite, as Petrus est non currens; but since verbs do not leave room for this distinction, but a negation prefixed to them makes the proposition negative, the distinction between a denied and an infinite utterance would be very ambiguous, as Petrus non currit. You ask why, then, Aristotle excluded infinite verbs. I answer that Aristotle did not do this expressly, but his disciples; but Aristotle added certain things to the definition of the noun — understand this with the appropriate qualifications — or he did it for the sake of greater clarity, or because he wished to, or because he forgot; and since there could be infinite causes, how do I know by which he was moved?