Authors/Ockham/Summa Logicae/Book I/Chapter 60

Latin	English
[CAP. 60. DE PRAEDICAMENTO 'UBI']	[Chapter 60. On the category ‘where’]
Octavum praedicamentum ponitur 'ubi'. Et de isto dico, sicut de praecedenti, quod, sicut mihi videtur, consonum est doctrinae Aristotelis quod 'ubi' non est aliqua res distincta a loco et ceteris rebus absolutis, sed semper Philosophus hoc praedicamentum per adverbium interrogativum loci nominavit. In quo praedicamento ponit omnia illa per quae convenienter respondetur ad quaestionem factam per hoc adverbium 'ubi'; ut si quaeratur 'ubi est Socrates', convenienter respondetur quod est in civitate vel in domo.	The eighth category is given as ‘where. And of this I say, just as before, that, as it seems to me, it is consonant with the teaching of Aristotle that ‘where’ is not some thing distinct from place and the rest of the absolute things, but rather the Philosopher always denominated this category by an interrogative adverb of place. He places in this category all those things which are an appropriate reply to the question made by ‘where’, so that if we ask “where is Socrates?”, the appropriate reply is that he is in the town, or in the house.
Ideo istas praepositiones cum suis casualibus ponit in praedicamento 'ubi'. Pro ista autem opinione potest argui quod non videtur contradictionem includere quod Deus destruat illam talem rem, si ponatur, non destruendo locum, nec illud quod locatur, nec transferendo locum vel locatum de loco ad locum. Quo facto quaero: aut illud corpus est in hoc loco aut non. Si est in hoc loco, et non habet talem rem, igitur locatum est in loco sine tali re; igitur frustra ponitur. Si non est in hoc loco, et prius fuit in hoc loco, et nihil est corruptum, igitur aliquid est motum localiter; quod est contra positum. Alii autem ponunt quod 'ubi' sive 'ubitas' est quidam respectus fundatus in locato, procedens ex circumscriptione loci, ita quod locatum fundat talem respectum et locus terminat eum.	Therefore he gives those prepositions, with their nouns in grammatical case, in the category ‘where’. For this opinion it can be argued that it does not seem to involve a contradiction that God does not destroy such a thing as that, if it be supposed, without destroying place, nor that which is placed, nor by transferring locum vel locatum de loco ad locum. Given this, I ask whether that body is in this place, or not. If it is in this place, and does not have such a thing, therefore the located is in place without such a thing, therefore it is supposed in vain. If it is not in this place, and was in this place before, and nothing is corrupted, therefore something is moved locally, which is against what was supposed. But others suppose that ‘where’ or ‘whereness’ is a sort of relative based in the located, proceding from the circumscription of place, so that the located is the basis of such a relative, and place terminates it.