« AnteriorContinuar »
$ 3. It is evident, that a Term may consist either of one Word or of several; and that it is not every word that is categorematic, i. e. capable of being employed by itself as a Term. Ad
verbs, Prepositions, 8c. and also Nouns in any Syncategore- other case besides the nominative, are syncate
gorematic, i. e. can only form part of a term. A nominative Noun may be by itself a term. A Verb (all except the substantive verb used as the copula) is a mixed word, being resolvable into the Copula and Predicate, to which it is equivalent; and, indeed, is often so resolved in the mere rendering out of one language into another; as “ ipse adest,” ” he is present. It is to be observed, however, that under “verb,” we do not include the Infinitive, which is properly a Noun-substantive, nor the Participle, which is a Noun-adjective. They are verbals ; being related to their respective verbs in respect of the things they signify: but not verbs, inasmuch as they differ entirely in their mode it is either to be understood as the same in sense, (the difference of tense being regarded as a matter of grammatical convenience only ;) or else, if the circumstance of time really do modify the sense of the whole proposition, so as to make the use of that tense an essential, then, this circumstance is to be regarded as a part of one of the
at that time," or some such expression, being understood. Sometimes the substantive verb is both copula and predicate; i. e. where existence only is predicated :
: e.g. Deus est.
of signification. It is worth observing, that an Infinitive (though it often comes last in the sentence) is never the predicate, except when another Infinitive is the Subject: e.g.
pred. "I hope to succeed :" i.e. " to succeed is what I hope.
It is to be observed, also, that in English there are two infinitives, one in “ing,”* the same in sound and spelling as the participle present, from which, however, it should be carefully distinguished; e.g. “rising early is healthful,” and “it is healthful to rise early," are equivalent. In this, and in many other cases, the English word IT serves as a representative of the subject when that is put last : e.g.
" It is to be hoped that we shall succeed.” An adjective (including participles) cannot, by itself, be made the subject of a proposition ; but is often employed as a predicate : as “Crassus was rich;” though some choose to
* Grammarians have produced much needless perplexity by speaking of the participle in "ing," being employed so and so; when it is manifest that that very employment of the word constitutes it, to all intents and purposes, an infinitive and not a participle. The advantage of the infinitive in ing, is, that it may be used either in the nominative or in any oblique case ; not, as some suppose that it necessarily implies a habit ; e. g. “Seeing is believing :” “ there is glory in dying for one's country :" "a habit of observing," fc.
consider some substantive as understood in every such case, (e. g. rich man) and consequently do not reckon adjectives among Simple terms; (i. e. words which are capable, singly, of being employed as terms.) This, however, is a question of no practical consequence; but I have thought it best to adhere to Aristotle's mode of statement. (See his Categ.)
Of Simple-terms, then, (which are what the first part of Logic treats of) there are many divisions; of which, however, one will be sufficient for the present purpose; viz. into singular and common; because, though any term whatever may be a subject, none but a common term can be affirmatively predicated of several others. A singular term stands for one individual, as “Cæsar,” “the Thames” (these, it is plain, cannot be said (or predicated] affirmatively, of any thing but themselves.) A common term stands for several individuals, (which are called its significates): i. e. can be applied to any of them, as comprehending them in its single signification; as “man,” “river," "great."
The learner who has gone through the Analytical Outline, will now be enabled to proceed to the Second and Third Chapters either with or without the study of the remainder of what is usually placed in the First Chapter, and which is subjoined as a Supplement. See Chap. v.
§ 1. The second part of Logic treats of the proposition ; which is, “ Judgment expressed in words."
A Proposition is defined logically* “a sentence Definition of indicative,” i.e. affirming or denying ; (this ex
cludes commands and questions.) “Sentence” being the genus, and“ Indicative” the difference, this definition expresses the whole essence; and it relates entirely to the words of a propo
sition. With regard to the matter, its property + lis, to be true or false. Hence it must not be
ambiguous (for that which has more than one meaning is in reality several propositions), nor imperfect, nor ungrammatical, for such an expression has no meaning at all.
Since the substance, (i. e. genus,* or material part) of a Proposition is, that it is a sentence ; and since every sentence (whether it be a pro- Divisions of position or not) may be expressed either absolutely, or under an hypothesis,$ on this we
* See Chap. v. $ 6.
+ Ibid. 9 3. | As, “ Cæsar deserved death ;” “ did Cæsar deserve death ?"
§ As, “ if Cæsar was a tyrant, what did he deserve ?” “ Was Cæsar a hero or a villain ?" “ If Cæsar was a tyrant, he deserved death ;" “ He was either a hero or a villain."
found the division* of propositions according to their substance ; viz. into categorical and hypothetical. And as genus is said to be predicated in quid (what), it is by the members of this division that we answer the question, what is this proposition ? (quæ est propositio.) Answer, Categorical or Hypothetical.
Categorical propositions are subdivided into pure, which asserts simply or purely, that the subject does or does not agree with the predicate, and modal, which expresses in what mode (or manner) it agrees; e. g. “ an intemperate man will be sickly;" “ Brutus killed Cæsar;" are pure.
“An intemperate man will probably be sickly;" “ Brutus killed Cæsar justly ;” are modal. At present we speak only of pure categorical propositions.
It being the differentiat of a proposition that it affirms or denies, and its property to be true or false ; and Differentia being predicated in quale quid, Property in quale, we hence form another division of propositions, viz. according to their quality, into Affirmative and Negative, (which is the quality of the expression, and therefore, in Logic, essential) and into True and False (which is the quality of the matter, and therefore accidental.) An Affirmative proposition is one whose copula is affirmative, as “ birds fly;" “not to advance is to go back ;" a Negative proposition is one whose copula is • See Chap. v. $ 5.
+ Ibid. $ 3.