Authors/Aristotle/metaphysics/l7/c5 - Revision history

Edward Ockham: /* Chapter 5 */

2015-02-21T22:51:47Z

Chapter 5

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:51, 21 February 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Chapter 5==		==Chapter 5==
	{\| border=1 cellpadding=10		{\| border=1 cellpadding=10
	!valign = top width=45%\|Latin		!valign = top width=30%\|Greek
	!valign = top width=55%\|English		!valign = top width=30%\|Latin
			!valign = top width=40%\|English
	\|- valign = top		\|- valign = top
			\|ἔχει δ᾽ ἀπορίαν, ἐάν τις μὴ φῇ ὁρισμὸν εἶναι τὸν ἐκ [15] προσθέσεως λόγον, τίνος ἔσται ὁρισμὸς τῶν οὐχ ἁπλῶν ἀλλὰ συνδεδυασμένων: ἐκ προσθέσεως γὰρ ἀνάγκη δηλοῦν. λέγω δὲ οἷον ἔστι ῥὶς καὶ κοιλότης, καὶ σιμότης τὸ ἐκ τῶν δυοῖν λεγόμενον τῷ τόδε ἐν τῷδε, καὶ οὐ κατὰ συμβεβηκός γε οὔθ᾽ ἡ κοιλότης οὔθ᾽ ἡ σιμότης πάθος τῆς ῥινός, ἀλλὰ καθ᾽ [20] αὑτήν: οὐδ᾽ ὡς τὸ λευκὸν Καλλίᾳ, ἢ ἀνθρώπῳ, ὅτι Καλλίας λευκὸς ᾧ συμβέβηκεν ἀνθρώπῳ εἶναι, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς τὸ ἄρρεν τῷ ζῴῳ καὶ τὸ ἴσον τῷ ποσῷ καὶ πάντα ὅσα λέγεται καθ᾽ αὑτὰ ὑπάρχειν. ταῦτα δ᾽ ἐστὶν ἐν ὅσοις ὑπάρχει ἢ ὁ λόγος ἢ τοὔνομα οὗ ἐστὶ τοῦτο τὸ πάθος, καὶ μὴ ἐνδέχεται δηλῶσαι [25] χωρίς, ὥσπερ τὸ λευκὸν ἄνευ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐνδέχεται ἀλλ᾽ οὐ τὸ θῆλυ ἄνευ τοῦ ζῴου: ὥστε τούτων τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι καὶ ὁρισμὸς ἢ οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδενὸς ἤ, εἰ ἔστιν, ἄλλως, καθάπερ εἰρήκαμεν.

	\|{{p\|139}} <span id=jp585></span> ''Habet autem dubitationem'', si quis non dicit diffinitionem esse ex additione rationem, cuius erit diffinitio ipsorum non {{a\|bk1030b15\|↵}} simplicium sed copulatorum; ex additione enim necesse palam facere. Dico autem ut est nasus et concavitas, et simitas ex duobus dictum eo quod hoc in hoc, hoc in hoc; et non secundum accidens nec concavitas neque simitas passio nasi, sed secundum se; nec ut album Calliae aut homini, quia Callias {{a\|bk1030b20\|↵}} albus cui accidit hominem esse, sed ut masculinum animali et quantitate aequale et omnia quaecumque secundum se dicuntur existere. Haec autem sunt in quibusque existit aut ratio aut nomen cuius haec passio, et non contingit ostendere {{a\|bk1030b25\|↵}} separatim, sicut album sine homine contingit sed non feminum sine animali. Quare horum quod quid erat esse et diffinitio aut non est alicuius aut, si est, aliter est, quemadmodum diximus.		\|{{p\|139}} <span id=jp585></span> ''Habet autem dubitationem'', si quis non dicit diffinitionem esse ex additione rationem, cuius erit diffinitio ipsorum non {{a\|bk1030b15\|↵}} simplicium sed copulatorum; ex additione enim necesse palam facere. Dico autem ut est nasus et concavitas, et simitas ex duobus dictum eo quod hoc in hoc, hoc in hoc; et non secundum accidens nec concavitas neque simitas passio nasi, sed secundum se; nec ut album Calliae aut homini, quia Callias {{a\|bk1030b20\|↵}} albus cui accidit hominem esse, sed ut masculinum animali et quantitate aequale et omnia quaecumque secundum se dicuntur existere. Haec autem sunt in quibusque existit aut ratio aut nomen cuius haec passio, et non contingit ostendere {{a\|bk1030b25\|↵}} separatim, sicut album sine homine contingit sed non feminum sine animali. Quare horum quod quid erat esse et diffinitio aut non est alicuius aut, si est, aliter est, quemadmodum diximus.

Line 9:		Line 12:

	\|- valign = top		\|- valign = top
			\|ἔστι δὲ ἀπορία καὶ ἑτέρα περὶ αὐτῶν. εἰ μὲν γὰρ τὸ αὐτό ἐστι σιμὴ ῥὶς καὶ κοίλη ῥίς, τὸ αὐτὸ ἔσται τὸ σιμὸν καὶ τὸ [30] κοῖλον: εἰ δὲ μή, διὰ τὸ ἀδύνατον εἶναι εἰπεῖν τὸ σιμὸν ἄνευ τοῦ πράγματος οὗ ἐστὶ πάθος καθ᾽ αὑτό (ἔστι γὰρ τὸ σιμὸν κοιλότης ἐν ῥινί), τὸ ῥῖνα σιμὴν εἰπεῖν ἢ οὐκ ἔστιν ἢ δὶς τὸ αὐτὸ ἔσται εἰρημένον, ῥὶς ῥὶς κοίλη (ἡ γὰρ ῥὶς ἡ σιμὴ ῥὶς ῥὶς κοίλη ἔσται), διὸ ἄτοπον τὸ ὑπάρχειν τοῖς τοιούτοις τὸ τί [35] ἦν εἶναι: εἰ δὲ μή, εἰς ἄπειρον εἶσιν: ῥινὶ γὰρ ῥινὶ σιμῇ ἔτι ἄλλο ἐνέσται.

	\|<span id=jp586></span> ''Est autem et alia dubitatio'' de eis. Si enim [/autem] idem simus nasus et concavus nasus, idem erit simum et concavum. Si vero non, {{a\|bk1030b30\|↵}} quia impossibile est dicere simum sine re cuius est passio secundum se (et est simum concavitas in naso), nasum simum dicere aut non est aut bis idem erit dictum, nasus nasus concavus; nasis enim simus: nasus nasus concavus erit. Propter quod inconveniens est inesse talibus quod quid erat esse. Si autem non, {{a\|bk1030b35\|↵}} in infinitum sunt; naso namque nasi, si non, adhuc aliud inerit. {{a\|bk1031a1\|↵}}		\|<span id=jp586></span> ''Est autem et alia dubitatio'' de eis. Si enim [/autem] idem simus nasus et concavus nasus, idem erit simum et concavum. Si vero non, {{a\|bk1030b30\|↵}} quia impossibile est dicere simum sine re cuius est passio secundum se (et est simum concavitas in naso), nasum simum dicere aut non est aut bis idem erit dictum, nasus nasus concavus; nasis enim simus: nasus nasus concavus erit. Propter quod inconveniens est inesse talibus quod quid erat esse. Si autem non, {{a\|bk1030b35\|↵}} in infinitum sunt; naso namque nasi, si non, adhuc aliud inerit. {{a\|bk1031a1\|↵}}

Line 14:		Line 19:

	\|- valign = top		\|- valign = top
			\|[1031α] [1] δῆλον τοίνυν ὅτι μόνης τῆς οὐσίας ἐστὶν ὁ ὁρισμός. εἰ γὰρ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων κατηγοριῶν, ἀνάγκη ἐκ προσθέσεως εἶναι, οἷον τοῦ ποιοῦ καὶ περιττοῦ: οὐ γὰρ ἄνευ ἀριθμοῦ, οὐδὲ τὸ θῆλυ ἄνευ ζῴου (τὸ δὲ ἐκ προσθέσεως λέγω ἐν οἷς [5] συμβαίνει δὶς τὸ αὐτὸ λέγειν ὥσπερ ἐν τούτοις). εἰ δὲ τοῦτο ἀληθές, οὐδὲ συνδυαζομένων ἔσται, οἷον ἀριθμοῦ περιττοῦ:

	\| {{p\|140}} Palam itaque quia solius substantiae est diffinitio. Nam et si aliarum cathegoriarum, necesse est ex additione esse, ut qualitatis et imparis; non enim sine numero, nec quae est feminini {{a\|bk1031a5\|↵}} sine animali. Ex additione vero dico in quibus accidit idem bis dicere, sicut in hiis. Si vero hoc verum, non copulatorum erit, ut numeri imparis;		\| {{p\|140}} Palam itaque quia solius substantiae est diffinitio. Nam et si aliarum cathegoriarum, necesse est ex additione esse, ut qualitatis et imparis; non enim sine numero, nec quae est feminini {{a\|bk1031a5\|↵}} sine animali. Ex additione vero dico in quibus accidit idem bis dicere, sicut in hiis. Si vero hoc verum, non copulatorum erit, ut numeri imparis;

Line 19:		Line 26:

	\|- valign = top		\|- valign = top
			\|ἀλλὰ λανθάνει ὅτι οὐκ ἀκριβῶς λέγονται οἱ λόγοι. εἰ δ᾽ εἰσὶ καὶ τούτων ὅροι, ἤτοι ἄλλον τρόπον εἰσὶν ἢ καθάπερ ἐλέχθη πολλαχῶς λεκτέον εἶναι τὸν ὁρισμὸν καὶ τὸ τί ἦν [10] εἶναι, ὥστε ὡδὶ μὲν οὐδενὸς ἔσται ὁρισμὸς οὐδὲ τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι οὐδενὶ ὑπάρξει πλὴν ταῖς οὐσίαις, ὡδὶ δ᾽ ἔσται. ὅτι μὲν οὖν ἐστὶν ὁ ὁρισμὸς ὁ τοῦ τί ἦν εἶναι λόγος, καὶ τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι ἢ μόνων τῶν οὐσιῶν ἐστὶν ἢ μάλιστα καὶ πρώτως καὶ ἁπλῶς, δῆλον. [15]

	\|<span id=jp587></span> ''sed latet'', quia non certe dicuntur rationes. Si vero sunt et horum termini, aut alio modo sunt aut, quemadmodum dictum est, multipliciter oportet dicere {{a\|bk1031a10\|↵}} esse diffinitionem et quid erat esse. Quare sic quidem nullius erit diffinitio nec quid erat esse alicui inerit nisi substantiis, sic autem erit. Quod quidem igitur est diffinitio quae ipsius quid erat esse ratio, et quid erat esse aut solum substantiarum est aut maximeet primum et simpliciter, palam.		\|<span id=jp587></span> ''sed latet'', quia non certe dicuntur rationes. Si vero sunt et horum termini, aut alio modo sunt aut, quemadmodum dictum est, multipliciter oportet dicere {{a\|bk1031a10\|↵}} esse diffinitionem et quid erat esse. Quare sic quidem nullius erit diffinitio nec quid erat esse alicui inerit nisi substantiis, sic autem erit. Quod quidem igitur est diffinitio quae ipsius quid erat esse ratio, et quid erat esse aut solum substantiarum est aut maximeet primum et simpliciter, palam.

Line 26:		Line 35:
	<noinclude>		<noinclude>
	==Notes==		==Notes==
	{{reflist}}		{{reflist}}</noinclude>
	</noinclude>

Edward Ockham: Text replace - "{{bk\|(.*)}}" to "{{a|bk$1|↵}}"

2014-03-13T11:32:08Z

Text replace - "{{bk\|(.*)}}" to "{{a|bk$1|↵}}"

Edward Ockham: Created page with "==Chapter 5== {| border=1 cellpadding=10 !valign = top width=45%|Latin !valign = top width=55%|English |- valign = top |{{p|139}} ''Habet autem dubitatione..."

2014-03-09T16:52:06Z

Created page with "==Chapter 5== {| border=1 cellpadding=10 !valign = top width=45%|Latin !valign = top width=55%|English |- valign = top |{{p|139}} ''Habet autem dubitatione..."

New page

==Chapter 5==
{| border=1 cellpadding=10
!valign = top width=45%|Latin
!valign = top width=55%|English
|- valign = top
|{{p|139}} ''Habet autem dubitationem'', si quis non dicit diffinitionem esse ex additione rationem, cuius erit diffinitio ipsorum non {{bk|1030b15}} simplicium sed copulatorum; ex additione enim necesse palam facere. Dico autem ut est nasus et concavitas, et simitas ex duobus dictum eo quod hoc in hoc, hoc in hoc; et non secundum accidens nec concavitas neque simitas passio nasi, sed secundum se; nec ut album Calliae aut homini, quia Callias {{bk|1030b20}} albus cui accidit hominem esse, sed ut masculinum animali et quantitate aequale et omnia quaecumque secundum se dicuntur existere. Haec autem sunt in quibusque existit aut ratio aut nomen cuius haec passio, et non contingit ostendere {{bk|1030b25}} separatim, sicut album sine homine contingit sed non feminum sine animali. Quare horum quod quid erat esse et diffinitio aut non est alicuius aut, si est, aliter est, quemadmodum diximus.

|'''Chapter 5'''. It is a difficult question, if one denies that a formula with an added determinant is a definition, whether any of the terms that are not simple but coupled will be definable. For we must explain them by adding a determinant. E.g. there is the nose, and concavity, and snubness, which is compounded out of the two by the presence of the one in the other, and it is not by accident that the nose has the attribute either of concavity or of snubness, but in virtue of its nature; nor do they attach to it as whiteness does to Callias, or to man (because Callias, who happens to be a man, is white), but as ‘male’ attaches to animal and ‘equal’ to quantity, and as all so-called ‘attributes propter se’ attach to their subjects. And such attributes are those in which is involved either the formula or the name of the subject of the particular attribute, and which cannot be explained without this; e.g. white can be explained apart from man, but not female apart from animal. Therefore there is either no essence and definition of any of these things, or if there is, it is in another sense, as we have said.

|- valign = top
| ''Est autem et alia dubitatio'' de eis. Si enim [/autem] idem simus nasus et concavus nasus, idem erit simum et concavum. Si vero non, {{bk|1030b30}} quia impossibile est dicere simum sine re cuius est passio secundum se (et est simum concavitas in naso), nasum simum dicere aut non est aut bis idem erit dictum, nasus nasus concavus; nasis enim simus: nasus nasus concavus erit. Propter quod inconveniens est inesse talibus quod quid erat esse. Si autem non, {{bk|1030b35}} in infinitum sunt; naso namque nasi, si non, adhuc aliud inerit. {{bk|1031a1}}

|But there is also a second difficulty about them. For if snub nose and concave nose are the same thing, snub and concave will be the thing; but if snub and concave are not the same (because it is impossible to speak of snubness apart from the thing of which it is an attribute propter se, for snubness is concavity-in-a-nose), either it is impossible to say ‘snub nose’ or the same thing will have been said twice, concave-nose nose; for snub nose will be concave-nose nose. And so it is absurd that such things should have an essence; if they have, there will be an infinite regress; for in snub-nose nose yet another ‘nose’ will be involved.

|- valign = top
| {{p|140}} Palam itaque quia solius substantiae est diffinitio. Nam et si aliarum cathegoriarum, necesse est ex additione esse, ut qualitatis et imparis; non enim sine numero, nec quae est feminini {{bk|1031a5}} sine animali. Ex additione vero dico in quibus accidit idem bis dicere, sicut in hiis. Si vero hoc verum, non copulatorum erit, ut numeri imparis;

| Clearly, then, only substance is definable [31a]. For if the other categories also are definable, it must be by addition of a determinant, e.g. the qualitative is defined thus, and so is the odd, for it cannot be defined apart from number; nor can female be defined apart from animal. (When I say ‘by addition’ I mean the expressions in which it turns out that we are saying the same thing twice, as in these instances.) And if this is true, coupled terms also, like ‘odd number’, will not be definable

|- valign = top
| ''sed latet'', quia non certe dicuntur rationes. Si vero sunt et horum termini, aut alio modo sunt aut, quemadmodum dictum est, multipliciter oportet dicere {{bk|1031a10}} esse diffinitionem et quid erat esse. Quare sic quidem nullius erit diffinitio nec quid erat esse alicui inerit nisi substantiis, sic autem erit. Quod quidem igitur est diffinitio quae ipsius quid erat esse ratio, et quid erat esse aut solum substantiarum est aut maximeet primum et simpliciter, palam.

|but this escapes our notice because our formulae are not accurate.). But if these also are definable, either it is in some other way or, as we definition and essence must be said to have more than one sense. Therefore in one sense nothing will have a definition and nothing will have an essence, except substances, but in another sense other things will have them. Clearly, then, definition is the formula of the essence, and essence belongs to substances either alone or chiefly and primarily and in the unqualified sense.

|}
<noinclude>
==Notes==
{{reflist}}
</noinclude>

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:32, 13 March 2014
Line 4:		Line 4:
	!valign = top width=55%\|English		!valign = top width=55%\|English
	\|- valign = top		\|- valign = top
	\|{{p\|139}} <span id=jp585></span> ''Habet autem dubitationem'', si quis non dicit diffinitionem esse ex additione rationem, cuius erit diffinitio ipsorum non {{bk\|~~1030b15~~}} simplicium sed copulatorum; ex additione enim necesse palam facere. Dico autem ut est nasus et concavitas, et simitas ex duobus dictum eo quod hoc in hoc, hoc in hoc; et non secundum accidens nec concavitas neque simitas passio nasi, sed secundum se; nec ut album Calliae aut homini, quia Callias {{bk\|~~1030b20~~}} albus cui accidit hominem esse, sed ut masculinum animali et quantitate aequale et omnia quaecumque secundum se dicuntur existere. Haec autem sunt in quibusque existit aut ratio aut nomen cuius haec passio, et non contingit ostendere {{bk\|~~1030b25~~}} separatim, sicut album sine homine contingit sed non feminum sine animali. Quare horum quod quid erat esse et diffinitio aut non est alicuius aut, si est, aliter est, quemadmodum diximus.		\|{{p\|139}} <span id=jp585></span> ''Habet autem dubitationem'', si quis non dicit diffinitionem esse ex additione rationem, cuius erit diffinitio ipsorum non {{a\|bk1030b15\|↵}} simplicium sed copulatorum; ex additione enim necesse palam facere. Dico autem ut est nasus et concavitas, et simitas ex duobus dictum eo quod hoc in hoc, hoc in hoc; et non secundum accidens nec concavitas neque simitas passio nasi, sed secundum se; nec ut album Calliae aut homini, quia Callias {{a\|bk1030b20\|↵}} albus cui accidit hominem esse, sed ut masculinum animali et quantitate aequale et omnia quaecumque secundum se dicuntur existere. Haec autem sunt in quibusque existit aut ratio aut nomen cuius haec passio, et non contingit ostendere {{a\|bk1030b25\|↵}} separatim, sicut album sine homine contingit sed non feminum sine animali. Quare horum quod quid erat esse et diffinitio aut non est alicuius aut, si est, aliter est, quemadmodum diximus.

	\|<span id=c5></span>'''Chapter 5'''. It is a difficult question, if one denies that a formula with an added determinant is a definition, whether any of the terms that are not simple but coupled will be definable. For we must explain them by adding a determinant. E.g. there is the nose, and concavity, and snubness, which is compounded out of the two by the presence of the one in the other, and it is not by accident that the nose has the attribute either of concavity or of snubness, but in virtue of its nature; nor do they attach to it as whiteness does to Callias, or to man (because Callias, who happens to be a man, is white), but as ‘male’ attaches to animal and ‘equal’ to quantity, and as all so-called ‘attributes propter se’ attach to their subjects. And such attributes are those in which is involved either the formula or the name of the subject of the particular attribute, and which cannot be explained without this; e.g. white can be explained apart from man, but not female apart from animal. Therefore there is either no essence and definition of any of these things, or if there is, it is in another sense, as we have said.		\|<span id=c5></span>'''Chapter 5'''. It is a difficult question, if one denies that a formula with an added determinant is a definition, whether any of the terms that are not simple but coupled will be definable. For we must explain them by adding a determinant. E.g. there is the nose, and concavity, and snubness, which is compounded out of the two by the presence of the one in the other, and it is not by accident that the nose has the attribute either of concavity or of snubness, but in virtue of its nature; nor do they attach to it as whiteness does to Callias, or to man (because Callias, who happens to be a man, is white), but as ‘male’ attaches to animal and ‘equal’ to quantity, and as all so-called ‘attributes propter se’ attach to their subjects. And such attributes are those in which is involved either the formula or the name of the subject of the particular attribute, and which cannot be explained without this; e.g. white can be explained apart from man, but not female apart from animal. Therefore there is either no essence and definition of any of these things, or if there is, it is in another sense, as we have said.

	\|- valign = top		\|- valign = top
	\|<span id=jp586></span> ''Est autem et alia dubitatio'' de eis. Si enim [/autem] idem simus nasus et concavus nasus, idem erit simum et concavum. Si vero non, {{bk\|~~1030b30~~}} quia impossibile est dicere simum sine re cuius est passio secundum se (et est simum concavitas in naso), nasum simum dicere aut non est aut bis idem erit dictum, nasus nasus concavus; nasis enim simus: nasus nasus concavus erit. Propter quod inconveniens est inesse talibus quod quid erat esse. Si autem non, {{bk\|~~1030b35~~}} in infinitum sunt; naso namque nasi, si non, adhuc aliud inerit. {{bk\|~~1031a1~~}}		\|<span id=jp586></span> ''Est autem et alia dubitatio'' de eis. Si enim [/autem] idem simus nasus et concavus nasus, idem erit simum et concavum. Si vero non, {{a\|bk1030b30\|↵}} quia impossibile est dicere simum sine re cuius est passio secundum se (et est simum concavitas in naso), nasum simum dicere aut non est aut bis idem erit dictum, nasus nasus concavus; nasis enim simus: nasus nasus concavus erit. Propter quod inconveniens est inesse talibus quod quid erat esse. Si autem non, {{a\|bk1030b35\|↵}} in infinitum sunt; naso namque nasi, si non, adhuc aliud inerit. {{a\|bk1031a1\|↵}}

	\|But there is also a second difficulty about them. For if snub nose and concave nose are the same thing, snub and concave will be the thing; but if snub and concave are not the same (because it is impossible to speak of snubness apart from the thing of which it is an attribute propter se, for snubness is concavity-in-a-nose), either it is impossible to say ‘snub nose’ or the same thing will have been said twice, concave-nose nose; for snub nose will be concave-nose nose. And so it is absurd that such things should have an essence; if they have, there will be an infinite regress; for in snub-nose nose yet another ‘nose’ will be involved.		\|But there is also a second difficulty about them. For if snub nose and concave nose are the same thing, snub and concave will be the thing; but if snub and concave are not the same (because it is impossible to speak of snubness apart from the thing of which it is an attribute propter se, for snubness is concavity-in-a-nose), either it is impossible to say ‘snub nose’ or the same thing will have been said twice, concave-nose nose; for snub nose will be concave-nose nose. And so it is absurd that such things should have an essence; if they have, there will be an infinite regress; for in snub-nose nose yet another ‘nose’ will be involved.

	\|- valign = top		\|- valign = top
	\| {{p\|140}} Palam itaque quia solius substantiae est diffinitio. Nam et si aliarum cathegoriarum, necesse est ex additione esse, ut qualitatis et imparis; non enim sine numero, nec quae est feminini {{bk\|~~1031a5~~}} sine animali. Ex additione vero dico in quibus accidit idem bis dicere, sicut in hiis. Si vero hoc verum, non copulatorum erit, ut numeri imparis;		\| {{p\|140}} Palam itaque quia solius substantiae est diffinitio. Nam et si aliarum cathegoriarum, necesse est ex additione esse, ut qualitatis et imparis; non enim sine numero, nec quae est feminini {{a\|bk1031a5\|↵}} sine animali. Ex additione vero dico in quibus accidit idem bis dicere, sicut in hiis. Si vero hoc verum, non copulatorum erit, ut numeri imparis;

	\| Clearly, then, only substance is definable [31a]. For if the other categories also are definable, it must be by addition of a determinant, e.g. the qualitative is defined thus, and so is the odd, for it cannot be defined apart from number; nor can female be defined apart from animal. (When I say ‘by addition’ I mean the expressions in which it turns out that we are saying the same thing twice, as in these instances.) And if this is true, coupled terms also, like ‘odd number’, will not be definable		\| Clearly, then, only substance is definable [31a]. For if the other categories also are definable, it must be by addition of a determinant, e.g. the qualitative is defined thus, and so is the odd, for it cannot be defined apart from number; nor can female be defined apart from animal. (When I say ‘by addition’ I mean the expressions in which it turns out that we are saying the same thing twice, as in these instances.) And if this is true, coupled terms also, like ‘odd number’, will not be definable

	\|- valign = top		\|- valign = top
	\|<span id=jp587></span> ''sed latet'', quia non certe dicuntur rationes. Si vero sunt et horum termini, aut alio modo sunt aut, quemadmodum dictum est, multipliciter oportet dicere {{bk\|~~1031a10~~}} esse diffinitionem et quid erat esse. Quare sic quidem nullius erit diffinitio nec quid erat esse alicui inerit nisi substantiis, sic autem erit. Quod quidem igitur est diffinitio quae ipsius quid erat esse ratio, et quid erat esse aut solum substantiarum est aut maximeet primum et simpliciter, palam.		\|<span id=jp587></span> ''sed latet'', quia non certe dicuntur rationes. Si vero sunt et horum termini, aut alio modo sunt aut, quemadmodum dictum est, multipliciter oportet dicere {{a\|bk1031a10\|↵}} esse diffinitionem et quid erat esse. Quare sic quidem nullius erit diffinitio nec quid erat esse alicui inerit nisi substantiis, sic autem erit. Quod quidem igitur est diffinitio quae ipsius quid erat esse ratio, et quid erat esse aut solum substantiarum est aut maximeet primum et simpliciter, palam.

	\|but this escapes our notice because our formulae are not accurate.). But if these also are definable, either it is in some other way or, as we definition and essence must be said to have more than one sense. Therefore in one sense nothing will have a definition and nothing will have an essence, except substances, but in another sense other things will have them. Clearly, then, definition is the formula of the essence, and essence belongs to substances either alone or chiefly and primarily and in the unqualified sense.		\|but this escapes our notice because our formulae are not accurate.). But if these also are definable, either it is in some other way or, as we definition and essence must be said to have more than one sense. Therefore in one sense nothing will have a definition and nothing will have an essence, except substances, but in another sense other things will have them. Clearly, then, definition is the formula of the essence, and essence belongs to substances either alone or chiefly and primarily and in the unqualified sense.