| |
| | The Summulae of John Buridan |
 | | In any case, whichever nominal form we use, the semantic function assigned to it by Buridan is clear: as a common term, it primarily has the function of referring materially to individual tokens of the corresponding proposition. |
 | | Instead, he argues that when these sentential nominalizations do not stand materially for the corresponding sentence-tokens, but are taken significatively, then they stand for those individuals of which their categorematic terms are jointly true, if they are true of anything; otherwise they just stand for nothing. |
 | | In that case they either appellate the ultimate significata of their nominative forms (i.e., the entities which would be their personal supposita of their nominative form if they were the subject or predicate of a proposition), or the immediate significata of their nominative forms, i.e., the concepts to which their nominative forms are subordinated. |
| www.fordham.edu /gsas/phil/klima/Intro.htm (10163 words) |
|