Augustine: Earlier Writings
y8 AUGUSTINE: EARLIER WRITINGS
Ad.—Perhaps I can, remembering what I said a little while ago. By "words" we mean everything articulately spoken and with some m.eaning. So every name, including the word "name," is a word; but every word is not a name, though the word "word" is itself a name.
12. Aug.—If someone were to affirm and prove that, just as every name is a word, so every word is a name, could you point out the difference except in sound and spelhng? Ad.—I could not. And I do not think there is a difference. Aug.—If all articulate and meaningful sounds are both words and names, but for one reason they are called words and for another names, will there be no difference? Ad.—I don't understand how that could be. Aug.—You understand at any rate that every coloured thing is visible, and that every visible thing is coloured, though these two words have quite different meanings. Ad.—I do. Aug.—What if similarly every word is a name and every name a word, though these two words, viz., "name" and "word," have different meanings? Ad.—I now see it might be so, but I wait for you to show me how. Aug.—You are aware, I suppose, that every articulate significant sound smites the ear in order that it may be perceived, remembered and known? Ad.—I am aware of that. Aug.—Therefore, whenever we speak, two things happen. Ad.—That is so. Aug.—What if words are so called from one of these two things, and names from the other? That is to say, if verbum derives from verberare, nomen from noscere, the former would receive its due appellation from something that happens to the ear, the latter from something that happens in the mind.
13. Ad.—I shall agree when you show me how we can correctly say that all words are names. Aug.—That is easy. I suppose you once learned and still remember that a pronoun is socalled because it can stand for a noun (name), though it characterizes its object less fully than the noun it has replaced. I believe this is the definition which you used to repeat to your grammar teacher: A pronoun is a part of speech which, when put in place of a noun, designates the same object but less fully. Ad.—I remx Cmber and I approve. Aug.—You see, then, that, according to this definition, pronouns can serve only in place of nouns, and can be put only in the place of nouns. For example, we say, "this man," "the king himself," "the same woman," "this gold," "that silver." "This," "that," "himself," "the same" are pronouns. "Man," "king," "woman," "gold," "silver" are nouns, by means of which the things are more fully
THE TEACHER 79 described than by the pronouns. Ad.—I see and agree. Aug.— Now name a few conjunctions, whichever you Hke. Ad.—"And," "but," "also." ^w.—Don't you think that all these you have mentioned are names (nouns)? Ad.—Not at all. Aug.—Do you think that I have used correct language in saying "all these you have mentioned"? Ad.—Quite correct. And now I understand that you have been showing me in a wonderful way that these were nouns which I mentioned, for otherwise it would not be correct to refer to them as "these." But I have still a suspicion that I judged your language to be correct because these con Junctions are undeniably words. Therefore we can correctly
! refer to them as "all these," viz., "all these words." If you ask me what part of speech is "words" I can only answer "a noun." So that your expression was correct perhaps because the pronoun was implicitly attached to this noun.
14. Aug.—An acute observation. But you are wrong. To correct your error listen attentively to what I say, if I can manage to express myself as I wish. To use words to treat of words is as complicated as to rub fingers together and expect someone else to distinguish which fingers tingle with warmth and which help others to tingle. Ad.—I give you all my attention, for your similitude has aroused my interest. Aug.—Words are a compound of sound and letters. Ad.—That is right. Aug.—Let us use a citation from an authority, dearest of all to us. When the Apostle Paul says: "In Christ there was not Yea [est] and Nay, but in him was Yea [est we are not to think, I suppose, that these three letters, e-s-t, were in Christ, but rather that which is signified by them. Ad.—Quite true. Aug.—When he says: "In him was Est/' he is to be understood as meaning, "In him was what we call Est [being]." If he had said: "In him was virtue," he would have to be understood to mean: "In him was what we call virtue." We should not have to think that these two syllables which we use when we speak of virtue were in him, but rather that the quahty denoted by the word "virtue" was in him.
Ad.—I follow you. Aug.—You understand that there is no difference between "is called virtue" and "is named virtue"?
Ad.—That is clear. Aug.—It is equally clear that there is no difference between, "in him was what is called Est,'' and, "in him was what is named Est." Ad.—I see there is no difference.
, Aug.—Do you see now what I am trying to point out to you?
' Ad.—Not quite. Aug.—You see that a name is that by which a thing is named. ^^.—Nothing is clearer. Aug.—Then you see that Est is a name [noun] if that which was in him is named Est