We first concern ourselves with what Aristotle calls ὄνομα. Ὄνομα roughly translates in English as name. It is whatever word we use to call a thing. This granted, once we go through Aristotle’s explanations and examples of ὄνομα, we find it nested within a discussion encompassing topics such linguistics, logic and grammar. For this reason, ὄνομα more aptly translates as noun in the present context. Be that as it may, we do not mean here noun in the strict modern grammatical sense of substantive. Instead, we mean noun in a broader classical sense which includes nouns (e.g. a horse), pronouns (e.g. it) or adjectives acting as nouns (e.g. the white). At this point, we find it worthy to mention that a group of words such as “my white horse”, Aristotle recognises as λόγος and not as ὄνομα in 16a19-16a26.
(1st, 2nd pars. - 16a19-16a29) three observations about the noun
So far, we have established that a noun is a simple as opposed to a composite speech instance. Furthermore, we have learned that each noun carries a meaning. As Aristotle has indicated, we note here that the meaning of a noun never entails its truth or falsity. (On Int. Ch. 1 16a10-16a18)
In the present chapter, Aristotle pursues to build further on our understanding of what a noun is. He thereupon instructs us on the following three points: (i) a noun is only meaningful by popular agreement, (ii) nouns do not communicate time, (iii) no segment of the speech or writing which constitute a noun carry a meaning on their own right.
(i) a noun is only meaningful by popular agreement
Animals vocalise to communicate their emotional state or to broadcast information about their surroundings. A dog, for instance, may let out successive high-pitched barks to issue a warning about some oncoming threat or low-pitched barks accompanied by growls to indicate that it is in an aggressive state. This acknowledged, we would face considerable challenges in identifying a non-human vocalisation which approximates what a noun is in human language. Vocalisations such as those of a dog, on the other hand, we find in all humans, even in newborn infants. Unlike the inarticulate cries of beasts and babies, however, a noun extends beyond the mere expression of the emotions of its speaker.
Afterall, we humans are not born able to speak and write like we are naturally able to laugh and cry. It is through considerable, continuous exposure and practice that we learn to communicate in what we call our native language. As such, the spoken sound which constitutes each noun has no meaning by nature (φύσει). Instead, as Aristotle asserts, a noun acquires its meaning as the result of an unspoken mutual agreement (συνθήκη) among its many speakers.
(ii) nouns do not communicate time
What nouns (e.g. horse or white) mean includes no reference to a past, present or future time. Nor can we add a time reference to a noun by changing something in it (e.g by adding a letter).
(iii) no piece of a noun is meaningful in its own right
Aristotle aims to demonstrate that no segment of the speech or writing which constitutes a noun holds meaning on its own. To this effect, he differentiates between simple and compound nouns. Both simple and compound nouns count as single words. A compound noun, however, is made up by putting together two or more words. When we join “sun” with “flower”, for instance, we get “sunflower”.
Now, in the case of a simple noun such as flower, Aristotle notes that the “flow-” or “-low-” or “-lower” in flower are meaningless on their own. The same applies to segments of proper nouns such as the name Merryweather. “Merry” and “weather” hold no meaning as parts of that noun. As words in the phrase (λόγος) “a merry weather”, however, they do carry a meaning.
In the case of a compound noun such as “sunflower”, the philosopher remarks that even though the segments “sun-” and “-flower” participate in what the whole word overall means, when taken separately they no longer hold any individual meaning.
Key points: (i) a noun is only meaningful by popular agreement, (ii) nouns do not communicate time, (iii) no segment of what constitutes a noun carries a meaning on its own.
(3rd par. - 16a30-16a31) on definite and indefinite nouns
A noun arises as a symbol for our impression of a thing. As such, a noun’s meaning is confined to the scope of what that noun represents as a symbol. The noun flower, for instance, stands for the way we conceptualise what we call a flower. It does not stand for anything beyond this. The agreement which assigns the spoken sound or written mark “flower” its meaning excludes it, at the same time, from assuming any and all other meanings. As such, we may describe flower as a definite noun, because it points to something definite.
“No flower” or “not a flower”, on the other hand, does not point to anything definite. It symbolises the exclusion of what underlies “flower” from the total of impressions nested in our soul which may correspond to the thing we refer to. For this reason, Aristotle chooses to call such a symbol an indefinite noun.
Key points: (i) a noun always stands for something definite. (ii) The noun “flower”, for example, stands for what underlies it and nothing beyond it. (iii) “No flower” or “not a flower”, however, only symbolises the exclusion of what underlies flower. (iv) This Aristotle calls “indefinite noun”.
(4th par. - 16b1-16b5) on noun declensions
A first introduction to the declensions of nouns
A noun may have more than one form. Each additional form may express number (e.g. I, we, he, they), gender (he, she, it) or case (he, his, him). Such noun forms we call declensions. In Greek and Latin we form each declension by changing a noun’s ending. In English we may still express number and gender by changing the noun ending. When it comes to case, we primarily express it with the position of a noun in a sentence as well as by placing a preposition before it.
Now, with declensions of number we convey quantities. We use the singular declension of a noun to refer to one thing (e.g. one flower), while with the plural we refer to many (nine flowers). Further, declensions of gender communicate whether what we are speaking of is masculine, feminine or neutral (e.g. he, she, it). Lastly, case declensions inform us about the role each noun plays in a sentence to help us interpret its meaning correctly. A noun in the nominative case, for example is, generally speaking, the subject in a sentence. A noun in the accusative case, on the other hand, typically forms part of the predicate. To illustrate, in the sentence “Socrates talked to Phaedrus”, “Socrates” is in the nominative case while “to Phaedrus” is in the accusative. In this example, the two cases help us distinguish who is talking to whom.
In ancient Greek there are five cases: (i) the nominative, (ii) the genitive, (iii) the dative, (iv) the accusative and (v) the vocative.
(i) the nominative case happens to be the standard form of a noun. It is also the case a noun has when it is the subject in a sentence.
(ii) a noun in the genitive typically couples with another noun to indicate some relation between the two. Correlatives (Cat. Ch 7), for example, are always in the genitive. As such, a noun in the genitive is in effect a noun acting as an adjective because its function is to modify another noun. (e.g. in “Aristotle is Nicomachus’ father” the “Nicomachus’” informs us whose father Aristotle is.)
(iii) nouns which form part of the predicate in a sentence are typically either in the dative case or (iv) the accusative.
(v) the primary use of the vocative case is to address someone directly. It’s the case used for greetings.
A remark on the case declensions of nouns
By and large, everything we have stated about the noun thus far applies also to all declensions, including cases. This acknowledged, in this section of the chapter, Aristotle asserts that only the nominative case may combine with a verb to bring about the possibility of truth and falsity.
Key points: (i) a noun has several forms, each representing either the number, gender or case we want to communicate. (ii) These forms are called declensions and all we have stated about the noun equivalently applies to its declensions with one exception. (iii) Namely, when it comes to cases, only the nominative case may combine with a verb and bring about truth or falsity.