Authors/Ockham/Summa Logicae/Book I/Chapter 69

Latin	English
[CAP. 69. DE SUPPOSITIONE PERSONALI]	[Chapter 69. On personal supposition]
Nunc accedendum est ad suppositionem personalem. Circa quam est sciendum quod solum categorema, quod est extremum propositionis, significative acceptum, supponit personaliter. Per primum excluduntur omnia syncategoremata, sive sint nomina sive coniunctiones sive adverbia sive praepositiones sive quaecumque alia, si alia sint. Per secundum excluditur omne verbum, quia numquam verbum potest esse extremum propositionis quando accipitur significative.	Now we must move on to personal supposition. Concerning this it should be known that only a categorematic term, which is the extreme of a proposition, taken significatively, supposits personally. By the first condition are excluded all syncategorematic terms, whether they are names or conjunctions are adverbs or prepositions or any other terms (if there are any). By the second condition is excluded every verb, because a verb can never be the extreme of a proposition when it is accepted significatively.
Et si dicatur quod sic dicendo 'legere est bonum', li legere accipitur significative et tamen supponit, dicendum quod ibi 'legere' non est verbum sed est nomen, et ita est ex usu quod infinitivus modus non tantum est verbum sed nomen. Unde si 'legere' remaneret ibi verbum, et non plus esset nomen quam 'legit', non magis esset haec vera 'legere est bonum' quam ista 'legit est bonum'. Sed unde est hoc? Dico quod hoc est ex usu loquentium. Per illam particulam 'extremum propositionis' excluditur pars extremi, quantucumque sit nomen et categorema. Sicut hic 'homo albus est animal' nec 'homo' supponit nec 'albus' supponit sed totum extremum supponit.	And if it is said that in saying 'to read is good', the expression 'to read' is taken significatively, and yet it supposits, it should be said that here 'to read' is not a verb but a name, and so it is from use that the infinitive mood is not only a verb but a name. Hence if 'to read' were to remain a verb here, and were not a name any more than 'reads', then 'to read is good' would no more be true than 'reads is good'. And whence is this? I say that this is from the use of speakers. By the part 'extreme of the proposition' is excluded a part of the extreme, no matter whether a name and a categorematic term'. For example, in 'a white man is an animal' neither 'man' nor 'white' supposits, but the whole extreme supposits.
Et ideo quantumcumque aliquando partes extremorum se habeant secundum superius et inferius, non oportet consequentiam esse bonam inter illas propositiones, quia illa regula debet intelligi quando ipsa extrema quae supponunt in propositionibus ordinantur secundum superius et inferius. Unde non sequitur 'tu es vadens ad forum, ergo tu es exsistens ad forum'; et tamen 'vadens' et 'exsistens' ordinantur secundum superius et inferius; sed ista extrema 'vadens ad forum' et 'exsistens ad forum' non sic ordinantur, ideo consequentia non valet.	And therefore, however much sometimes the parts of the extremes are related as superior and inferior, the consequence does not have to be good between those propositions, because that rule ought to be understood when those extremes which supposit in propositions ordered as superior and inferior. Hence it does not follow "you are walking to the market, therefore you are existing to the market", and yet 'walking' and 'existing' are ordered as superior and inferior. But the extremes "walking to the market" and "existing to the market" are not thus ordered, therefore the consequence is not valid.
Tamen aliquando consequentia valet, quia aliquando non possunt tales partes ordinari secundum superius et inferius nisi etiam tota extrema sic ordinentur vel possint sic ordinari, sicut patet hic 'homo albus - animal album', 'videns hominem - videns animal' et sic de multis aliis. Et ideo frequenter est talis consequentia bona sed non semper, et ita pars extremi non supponit in tali propositione, tamen in alia propositione supponere potest.	Yet sometimes the consequence is valid, for sometimes such parts cannot be ordered as superior and inferior, unless also the whole extremes are ordered in this way, or could be thus ordered, as is clear in "a white man --- a white animal", "a walking man --- a walking animal", and so for many other cases. And therefore frequently such a consequence is good, but not always, and so a part of the extreme does not supposit in such a proposition, yet in another proposition it can supposit.
Per tertiam particulam 'significative acceptum' excluduntur categoremata talia quando supponunt simpliciter vel materialiter. Tunc enim, quia non accipiuntur significative, ideo personaliter non supponunt, sicut hic 'homo est nomen', 'homo est species', et in consimilibus.	By the third part 'significatively accepted', are excluded such categorematic terms when they supposit simply or materially. For then, because they are not accepted significatively, therefore they do not supposit personally, such as in 'man is a noun', 'man is a species', and similar cases.