Aristotle's On Interpretation Ch. 10. segment 19b5-19b18: Breaking the assertion down to its parts. A preliminary outline of the constitutive elements of the assertion
(19b5-19b18) of Ch. 10: Breaking the assertion down to its parts. A preliminary outline of the constitutive elements of the assertion
Aristotle begins Ch. 10 with a definition of the simple assertion (ἀπόφανσις). Namely, he instructs us that it signifies one thing about one thing (ἓν καθ' ἑνὸς). From there, he pivots our attention to the distinct elements with which we can make an assertion. On one hand, we have (i) the noun (ὄνομα) and the indefinite noun (ἀόριστον ὄνομα). On the other hand, we have (ii) the verb (ῥῆμα), the indefinite verb (ἀόριστον ῥῆμα), and their inflections (πτώσεις).
(i) the noun and the indefinite noun
Aristotle most properly introduces us to the noun and the indefinite noun in On Int. Ch. 2. There, he instructs us that the noun is the most elementary unit of speech, which is self-contained and has standalone meaning. The philosopher argues that a noun arises as a symbol of our impression of something. That is, insofar as this presents itself to us as one thing (ἕν πράγμα). As such, the meaning (νόημα) of a noun is definite. That is, it confines itself to the scope of the one thing the noun represents as a symbol. What we communicate with the noun “flower, for instance, does not venture outside the concept of what presents itself as “flower”. With a noun we pin down what something is.
Conversely, with an indefinite noun we do not convey what something is, only what it is not. The matter of what something is remains undetermined. For example, when we call something “non-flower”, we only communicate that it is anything but a “flower”.
(ii) the verb, the indefinite verb and their inflections
The verb and the indefinite verb occupy the focus of Aristotle’s discussion in On Int. Ch. 3. There, the philosopher explains that like the noun, the verb cannot be broken down to more elementary instances of speech which hold a standalone meaning. Be that as it may, what foremost stands out in a verb, which sets it apart from any noun, is that part of its meaning situates the rest in the present time. Furthermore, Aristotle describes the verb as a sign of things said of another thing. With this he means that the meaning of a verb carries the implication that it should be ascribed to something outside of it.
The relation between a verb and an indefinite verb is equivalent to the one between a noun and an indefinite noun. A verb stands as a symbol for something definite. Its meaning covers a very narrow scope. An indefinite verb, on the other hand, does not concern itself with what a thing is. It only conveys the exclusion of one option from the sum of all what a thing can be. To offer an example, where “runs” signifies a particular activity, “does not run” merely communicates the exclusion of what “runs” means.
Where verbs and indefinite verbs situate their meaning in the present, some of their inflections do so in the past, while others in the future. Aristotle looks into inflections in On Int. Ch. 9. One of the points he makes there is that we can move the meaning of an assertion to the past or future by swapping out its verb with the appropriate inflection.
Both in the cases of (i) nouns and indefinite nouns, as well as that of (ii) verbs, indefinite verbs, and their inflections we deal with elementary instances of speech. While these are meaningful, they neither signify something that is true or false, nor whether something exists or not. Only composite instances of speech such as the assertion do so. An assertion is the combination of at least one noun and verb.
A first look at how we may combine simple speech instances to form assertions
A simple assertion is either an affirmation (κατάφασις) or a negation (ἀπόφασις). With one we affirm one thing about one thing. With the other we deny one thing about one thing. In both the case of an affirmation and that of a negation, we deal with diverse combinations of the simple speech instances we discussed above. In the present chapter, Aristotle intently involves us in a discussion about what combinations of which simple speech instances yield what assertions.
To this end, the philosopher first points us to the most elementary assertion. This happens to be an affirmation which combines a noun with a verb, e.g. “a horse runs” {noun}{verb}. He proceeds to formulate an alternate affirmation which combines an indefinite noun with a verb “a non-horse runs” {ind. noun}{verb}. To form the negation of “a horse runs”, he combines the same noun with an indefinite verb “a horse does not run” {noun}{ind. verb}. The negation of “a non-horse runs” he forms by combining the indefinite noun with the indefinite verb “a non-horse does not run” {ind. noun} {ind. verb}.
He thereby instructs us that (i) to form an affirmation we combine a verb with a noun or indefinite noun, and (ii) to form a negation we combine an indefinite verb with a noun or indefinite noun.
Moreover, Aristotle provides us the formulations for when the subject of the assertion applies universally. As a rule, we may only assert something universally when our subject is a universal. We place a quantifier such as “every” (πᾶς) before the subject to signify the inclusion of all things the subject encompases and “no” (οὐδεὶς) to signify the exclusion of all those things. This the philosopher discusses in Ch. 7 11b2-11b16.
These are the formulations Aristotle gives us: The assertion “every horse runs” combines a noun and a verb {noun°}{verb}. “Every non-horse runs” combines an indefinite noun with a verb {ind. noun°}{verb}. The negation of the first is “every horse does not run”. It combines a noun with an indefinite verb {noun°}{ind. Verb}. “Every non-horse does not run” is the negation to “every non-horse runs”. It combines an indefinite verb with an indefinite noun {ind. noun°}{ind. Verb}. Where a {noun} or {ind. noun} carries the symbol “°” it means that the particular simple speech instance is the subject and that it applies universally.
Thus far, Aristotle only prepares the groundwork in order to provide us with further instruction. In the ensuing paragraphs, he plans to exhaust all the possible ways in which we can formulate an assertion. Aristotle wants to empower us to think about assertions in terms of their constitutive elements. He wants us to become curious about the way in which we may change the meaning of an assertion when we swap such elements around.
Key points:(i) An assertion is a composite instance of speech. It comprises a combination of simple speech instances such as the noun, the indefinite noun, the verb, the indefinite verb and verb inflections. These are the most elementary instances of speech which are self-contained and carry a standalone meaning. (ii) To formulate a basic affirmation we may combine a verb with either a noun or an indefinite noun. To formulate a basic negation we may combine an indefinite verb with either a noun or an indefinite noun.
One point - universals are intramental concepts like "man" (viz. in general). Some translations make it "a man" but this is a mistake. So what is translated "all men" does not mean "every individual man" but rather the whole of the universal. Ex: "some animals are men" means not "some of the individual animals are men right now", but more like "a portion of the extratemporal universal "animal" is the species "man"". And ofc this is what he's talking about with "universals taken universally" etc earlier on. The earlier logical works must be interpreted in light of the Posterior Analytics, and the Analytica (esp. the mixed modals!) will not make sense if you read universals as sets of particulars. But this is gold overall, delighted to see people working through these difficult and oft-neglected texts. I'll try to keep following along.
I found this line interesting: "The philosopher argues that a noun arises as a symbol of our impression of something." As with your example the word flower, for instance, if you said "anthērós" the noun would be flower. However, it also implies blooming, which can be a noun, verb or an adjective. Depending on our impression, anthērós may not be a flower, but could be used to give the impression of a fragrant thought or idea, correct?