Authors/Thomas Aquinas/perihermenias/perihermenias I/L6

LECTURE 6

Latin	English
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 6 n. 1 Postquam philosophus determinavit de nomine et de verbo, quae sunt principia materialia enunciationis, utpote partes eius existentes; nunc determinat de oratione, quae est principium formale enunciationis, utpote genus eius existens. Et circa hoc tria facit: primo enim, proponit definitionem orationis; secundo, exponit eam; ibi: dico autem ut homo etc.; tertio, excludit errorem; ibi: est autem oratio omnis et cetera.	1. Having established and explained the definition of the name and the verb, which are the material principles of the enunciation inasmuch as they are its parts, the Philosopher now determines and explains what speech is, which is the formal principle of the enunciation inasmuch as it is its genus. First he proposes the definition of speech; then he explains it where he says, Let me explain. The word "animal” signifies something, etc.; finally, he excludes an error where he says, But all speech is significant—not just as an instrument, however, etc.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 6 n. 2 Circa primum considerandum est quod philosophus in definitione orationis primo ponit illud in quo oratio convenit cum nomine et verbo, cum dicit: oratio est vox significativa, quod etiam posuit in definitione nominis, et probavit de verbo quod aliquid significet. Non autem posuit in eius definitione, quia supponebat ex eo quod positum erat in definitione nominis, studens brevitati, ne idem frequenter iteraret. Iterat tamen hoc in definitione orationis, quia significatio orationis differt a significatione nominis et verbi, quia nomen vel verbum significat simplicem intellectum, oratio vero significat intellectum compositum.	2. In defining speech the Philosopher first states what it has in common with the name and verb where he says, Speech is significant vocal sound. This was posited in the definition of the name but not repeated in the case of the verb, because it was supposed from the definition of the name. This was done for the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition; but subsequently he did prove that the verb signifies something. He repeats this, however, in the definition of speech because the signification of speech differs from that of the name and the verb; for the name and the verb signify simple thought, whereas speech signifies composite thought.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 6 n. 3 Secundo autem ponit id, in quo oratio differt a nomine et verbo, cum dicit: cuius partium aliquid significativum est separatim. Supra enim dictum est quod pars nominis non significat aliquid per se separatum, sed solum quod est coniunctum ex duabus partibus. Signanter autem non dicit: cuius pars est significativa aliquid separata, sed cuius aliquid partium est significativum, propter negationes et alia syncategoremata, quae secundum se non significant aliquid absolutum, sed solum habitudinem unius ad alterum. Sed quia duplex est significatio vocis, una quae refertur ad intellectum compositum, alia quae refertur ad intellectum simplicem; prima significatio competit orationi, secunda non competit orationi, sed parti orationis. Unde subdit: ut dictio, non ut affirmatio. Quasi dicat: pars orationis est significativa, sicut dictio significat, puta ut nomen et verbum, non sicut affirmatio, quae componitur ex nomine et verbo. Facit autem mentionem solum de affirmatione et non de negatione, quia negatio secundum vocem superaddit affirmationi; unde si pars orationis propter sui simplicitatem non significat aliquid, ut affirmatio, multo minus ut negatio.	3. Secondly, he posits what differentiates speech from the name and verb when he says, of which some of the parts are significant separately; for a part of a name taken separately does not signify anything per se, except in the case of a name composed of two parts, as he said above. Note that he says, of which some of the parts are significant, and not, a part of which is significant separately; this is to exclude negations and the other words used to unite categorical words, which do not in themselves signify something absolutely, but only the relationship of one thing to another. Then because the signification of vocal sound is twofold, one being referred to composite thought, the other to simple thought (the first belonging to speech, the second, not to speech but to a part of speech), he adds, as words but not as an affirmation. What he means is that a part of speech signifies in the way a word signifies, a name or a verb, for instance; it does not signify in the way an affirmation signifies, which is composed of a name and a verb. He only mentions affirmation because negation adds something to affirmation as far as vocal sound is concerned for if a part of speech, since it is simple, does not signify as an affirmation, it will not signify as a negation.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 6 n. 4 Sed contra hanc definitionem Aspasius obiicit quod videtur non omnibus partibus orationis convenire. Sunt enim quaedam orationes, quarum partes significant aliquid ut affirmatio; ut puta, si sol lucet super terram, dies est; et sic de multis. Et ad hoc respondet Porphyrius quod in quocumque genere invenitur prius et posterius, debet definiri id quod prius est. Sicut cum datur definitio alicuius speciei, puta hominis, intelligitur definitio de eo quod est in actu, non de eo quod est in potentia; et ideo quia in genere orationis prius est oratio simplex, inde est quod Aristoteles prius definivit orationem simplicem. Vel potest dici, secundum Alexandrum et Ammonium, quod hic definitur oratio in communi. Unde debet poni in hac definitione id quod est commune orationi simplici et compositae. Habere autem partes significantes aliquid ut affirmatio, competit soli orationi, compositae; sed habere partes significantes aliquid per modum dictionis, et non per modum affirmationis, est commune orationi simplici et compositae. Et ideo hoc debuit poni in definitione orationis. Et secundum hoc non debet intelligi esse de ratione orationis quod pars eius non sit affirmatio: sed quia de ratione orationis est quod pars eius sit aliquid quod significat per modum dictionis, et non per modum affirmationis. Et in idem redit solutio Porphyrii quantum ad sensum, licet quantum ad verba parumper differat. Quia enim Aristoteles frequenter ponit dicere pro affirmare, ne dictio pro affirmatione sumatur, subdit quod pars orationis significat ut dictio, et addit non ut affirmatio: quasi diceret, secundum sensum Porphyrii, non accipiatur nunc dictio secundum quod idem est quod affirmatio. Philosophus autem, qui dicitur Ioannes grammaticus, voluit quod haec definitio orationis daretur solum de oratione perfecta, eo quod partes non videntur esse nisi alicuius perfecti, sicut omnes partes domus referuntur ad domum: et ideo secundum ipsum sola oratio perfecta habet partes significativas. Sed tamen hic decipiebatur, quia quamvis omnes partes referantur principaliter ad totum perfectum, quaedam tamen partes referuntur ad ipsum immediate, sicut paries et tectum ad domum, et membra organica ad animal: quaedam vero mediantibus partibus principalibus quarum sunt partes; sicut lapides referuntur ad domum mediante pariete; nervi autem et ossa ad animal mediantibus membris organicis, scilicet manu et pede et huiusmodi. Sic ergo omnes partes orationis principaliter referuntur ad orationem perfectam, cuius pars est oratio imperfecta, quae etiam ipsa habet partes significantes. Unde ista definitio convenit tam orationi perfectae, quam imperfectae.	4. Aspasius objects to this definition because it does not seem to belong to all parts of speech. There is a kind of speech he says, in which some of the parts signify as an affirmation; for instance, "If the sun shines over the earth, it is day,” and so in many other examples. Porphyry says in reply to this objection that in whatever genus there is something prior and posterior, it is the prior thing that has to be defined. For example, when we give the definition of a species—say, of man—the definition is understood of that which is in act, not of that which is in potency. Since, then, in the genus of speech, simple speech is prior, Aristotle defines it first. Or, we can answer the objection in the way Alexander and Ammonious do. They say that speech is defined here commonly. Hence what is common to simple and composite speech ought to be stated in the definition. Now to have parts signifying something as an affirmation belongs only to composite speech, but to have parts signifying something in the mode of a word and not in the mode of an affirmation is common to simple and composite speech. Therefore this had to be posited in the definition of speech. We should not conclude, however, that it is of the nature of speech that its part not be an affirmation, but rather that it is of the nature of speech that its parts be something that signify in the manner of words and not in the manner of an affirmation. Porphyry’s solution reduces to the same thing as far as meaning is concerned, although it is a little different verbally. Aristotle frequently uses "to say” for "to affirm,” and hence to prevent "word” from being taken as "affirmation” when he says that a part of speech signifies as a word, he immediately adds, not as an affirmation, meaning—according to Porphyry’s view—"word” is not taken here in the sense in which it is the same as "affirmation.” A philosopher called John the Grammarian thought that this definition could only apply to perfect speech because there only seem to be parts in the case of something perfect, or complete; for example, a house to which all of the parts are referred. Therefore only perfect speech has significant parts. He was in error on this point, however, for while it is true that all the parts are referred principally to the perfect, or complete whole, some parts are referred to it immediately, for example, the walls and roof to a house and organic members to an animal; others, however, are referred to it through the principal parts of which they are parts; stones, for example, to the house by the mediate wall, and nerves and bones to the animal by the mediate organic members like the hand and the foot, etc. In the case of speech, therefore, all of the parts are principally referred to perfect speech, a part of which is imperfect speech, which also has significant parts. Hence this definition belongs both to perfect and to imperfect speech.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 6 n. 5 Deinde cum dicit: dico autem ut homo etc., exponit propositam definitionem. Et primo, manifestat verum esse quod dicitur; secundo, excludit falsum intellectum; ibi: sed non una hominis syllaba et cetera. Exponit ergo quod dixerat aliquid partium orationis esse significativum, sicut hoc nomen homo, quod est pars orationis, significat aliquid, sed non significat ut affirmatio aut negatio, quia non significat esse vel non esse. Et hoc dico non in actu, sed solum in potentia. Potest enim aliquid addi, per cuius additionem fit affirmatio vel negatio, scilicet si addatur ei verbum.	5. When he says, Let me explain. The word "animal” signifies something, etc., he elucidates the definition. First he shows that what he says is true; secondly, he excludes a false understanding of it where he says, But one syllable of "animal” does not signify anything, etc. He explains that when he says some parts of speech are significant, he means that some of the parts signify something in the way the name "animal,” which is a part of speech, signifies something and yet does not signify as an affirmation or negation, because it does not signify to be or not to be. By this I mean it does not signify affirmation or negation in act, but only in potency; for it is possible to add something that will make it an affirmation or negation, i.e., a verb.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 6 n. 6 Deinde cum dicit: sed non una hominis etc., excludit falsum intellectum. Et posset hoc referri ad immediate dictum, ut sit sensus quod nomen erit affirmatio vel negatio, si quid ei addatur, sed non si addatur ei una nominis syllaba. Sed quia huic sensui non conveniunt verba sequentia, oportet quod referatur ad id, quod supra dictum est in definitione orationis, scilicet quod aliquid partium eius sit significativum separatim. Sed quia pars alicuius totius dicitur proprie illud, quod immediate venit ad constitutionem totius, non autem pars partis; ideo hoc intelligendum est de partibus ex quibus immediate constituitur oratio, scilicet de nomine et verbo, non autem de partibus nominis vel verbi, quae sunt syllabae vel litterae. Et ideo dicitur quod pars orationis est significativa separata, non tamen talis pars, quae est una nominis syllaba. Et hoc manifestat in syllabis, quae quandoque possunt esse dictiones per se significantes: sicut hoc quod dico rex, quandoque est una dictio per se significans; in quantum vero accipitur ut una quaedam syllaba huius nominis sorex, soricis, non significat aliquid per se, sed est vox sola. Dictio enim quaedam est composita ex pluribus vocibus, tamen in significando habet simplicitatem, in quantum scilicet significat simplicem intellectum. Et ideo in quantum est vox composita, potest habere partem quae sit vox, inquantum autem est simplex in significando, non potest habere partem significantem. Unde syllabae quidem sunt voces, sed non sunt voces per se significantes. Sciendum tamen quod in nominibus compositis, quae imponuntur ad significandum rem simplicem ex aliquo intellectu composito, partes secundum apparentiam aliquid significant, licet non secundum veritatem. Et ideo subdit quod in duplicibus, idest in nominibus compositis, syllabae quae possunt esse dictiones, in compositione nominis venientes, significant aliquid, scilicet in ipso composito et secundum quod sunt dictiones; non autem significant aliquid secundum se, prout sunt huiusmodi nominis partes, sed eo modo, sicut supra dictum est.	6. He excludes a false understanding of what has been said by his next statement. But one syllable of "animal” does not signify anything. This could be referred to what has just been said and the meaning would be that the name will be an affirmation or negation if something is added to it, but not if what is added is one syllable of a name. However, what he says next is not compatible with this meaning and therefore these words should be referred to what was stated earlier in defining speech, namely, to some parts of which are significant separately. Now, since what is properly called a part of a whole is that which contributes immediately to the formation of the whole, and not that which is a part of a part, "some parts” should be understood as the parts from which speech is immediately formed, i.e., the name and verb, and not as parts of the name or verb, which are syllables or letters. Hence, what is being said here is that a part of speech is significant separately but not such a part as the syllable of a name. He manifests this by means of syllables that sometimes can be words signifying per se. "Owl,” for example, is sometimes one word signifying per se. When taken as a syllable of the name "fowl,” however, it does not signify something per se but is only a vocal sound. For a word is composed of many vocal sounds, but it has simplicity in signifying insofar as it signifies simple thought. Hence, a word inasmuch as it is a composite vocal sound can have a part which is a vocal sound, but inasmuch as it is simple in signifying it cannot have a signifying part. Whence syllables are indeed vocal sounds, but they are not vocal sounds signifying per se. In contrast to this it should be noted that in composite names, which are imposed to signify a simple thing from some composite understanding, the parts appear to signify something, although according to truth they do not. For this reason he adds that in compound words, i.e., composite names, the syllables may be words contributing to the composition of a name, and therefore signify something, namely, in the composite, and according as they are words; but as parts of this kind of name they do not signify something per se, but in the way that has already been explained.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 6 n. 7 Deinde cum dicit: est autem oratio etc., excludit quemdam errorem. Fuerunt enim aliqui dicentes quod oratio et eius partes significant naturaliter, non ad placitum. Ad probandum autem hoc utebantur tali ratione. Virtutis naturalis oportet esse naturalia instrumenta: quia natura non deficit in necessariis; potentia autem interpretativa est naturalis homini; ergo instrumenta eius sunt naturalia. Instrumentum autem eius est oratio, quia per orationem virtus interpretativa interpretatur mentis conceptum: hoc enim dicimus instrumentum, quo agens operatur. Ergo oratio est aliquid naturale, non ex institutione humana significans, sed naturaliter.	7. Then he says, But all speech is significant—not just as an instrument, however, etc. Here he excludes the error of those who said that speech and its parts signify naturally rather than by convention. To prove their point they used the following argument. The instruments of a natural power must themselves be natural, for nature does not fail in regard to what is necessary; but the interpretive power is natural to man; therefore, its instruments are natural. Now the instrument of the interpretive power is speech since it is through speech that expression is given to the conception of the mind; for we mean by an instrument that by which an agent operates. Therefore, speech is something natural, signifying, not from human institution, but naturally.
Aquinas lib. 1 l. 6 n. 8 Huic autem rationi, quae dicitur esse Platonis in Lib. qui intitulatur Cratylus, Aristoteles obviando dicit quod omnis oratio est significativa, non sicut instrumentum virtutis, scilicet naturalis: quia instrumenta naturalia virtutis interpretativae sunt guttur et pulmo, quibus formatur vox, et lingua et dentes et labia, quibus litterati ac articulati soni distinguuntur; oratio autem et partes eius sunt sicut effectus virtutis interpretativae per instrumenta praedicta. Sicut enim virtus motiva utitur naturalibus instrumentis, sicut brachiis et manibus ad faciendum opera artificialia, ita virtus interpretativa utitur gutture et aliis instrumentis naturalibus ad faciendum orationem. Unde oratio et partes eius non sunt res naturales, sed quidam artificiales effectus. Et ideo subdit quod oratio significat ad placitum, idest secundum institutionem humanae rationis et voluntatis, ut supra dictum est, sicut et omnia artificialia causantur ex humana voluntate et ratione. Sciendum tamen quod, si virtutem interpretativam non attribuamus virtuti motivae, sed rationi; sic non est virtus naturalis, sed supra omnem naturam corpoream: quia intellectus non est actus alicuius corporis, sicut probatur in III de anima. Ipsa autem ratio est, quae movet virtutem corporalem motivam ad opera artificialia, quibus etiam ut instrumentis utitur ratio: non sunt autem instrumenta alicuius virtutis corporalis. Et hoc modo ratio potest etiam uti oratione et eius partibus, quasi instrumentis: quamvis non naturaliter significent.	8. Aristotle refutes this argument, which is said to be that of Plato in the Cratylus, when he says that all speech is significant, but not as an instrument of a power, that is, of a natural power; for the natural instruments of the interpretive power are the throat and lungs, by which vocal sound is formed, and the tongue, teeth and lips by which letters and articulate sounds are formulated. Rather, speech and its parts are effects of the interpretative power through the aforesaid instruments. For just as the motive power uses natural instruments such as arms and hands to make an artificial work, so the interpretative power uses the throat and other natural instruments to make speech. Hence, speech and its parts are not natural things, but certain artificial effects. This is the reason Aristotle adds here that speech signifies by convention, i.e., according to the ordinance of human will and reason. It should be noted, however, that if we do not attribute the interpretative power to a motive power, but to reason, then it is not a natural power but is beyond every corporeal nature, since thought is not an act of the body, as is proved in III De anima [4: 429a 10]. Moreover, it is reason itself that moves the corporeal motive power to make artificial works, which reason then uses as instruments; and thus artificial works are not instruments of a corporeal power. Reason can also use speech and its parts in this way, i.e., as instruments, although they do not signify naturally.