6: On Universal Propositions in which the Sign Distributes over Integral Parts, e.g. the Sign 'Whole'
Propositions in which the Sign Distributes over Integral Parts Hence, these propositions can in no way be true: 'Both of them are every man' and 'Both of them are both of them'—no matter which things are referred to. Still, the following can be true:
'Every man is every man' and, likewise, 'Every white thing is every white thing', and 'Every animal is every animal'. For if there were only one man or only one animal or only one white thing, then the proposition in question would be true.
The reason for this difference is that the sign 'every' can properly be added to a term which has one suppositum, while 'both' always requires two supposita, namely, the two things referred to. And so if the predicate in 'Both of them are every man' had only one suppositum, the proposition would obviously be false.
For in the subject it is required that two things be referred to— but not two men, therefore one man and one non-man, or two non-men. Whichever alternative is chosen, the proposition is clearly false. And so it is clear for all the other cases.
6: On Universal Propositions in which the Sign Distributes over Integral Parts, e.g. the Sign 'Whole'
With respect to a sign which distributes over integral parts—the sign 'whole' is said to be of this type' —it should be noted that the sign 'whole' can sometimes be taken categorematically and sometimes syncategorematically. If it is taken categorematically, then it signifies the same thing signified by 'complete' or 'composed of all its parts'. And when it is so taken, then insofar as the truth of what is said is concerned, not adding it has the same effect as adding it. Hence, whatever is said of a term taken with 'whole' understood categorematically can be said of that term taken without 'whole'. For if the whole Socrates is running, then
Socrates is running; and if a whole man is an animal, then a man is an animal.
Propositions in' which the Sign Distributes over Integral Parts Nevertheless, it could be said that it is properly added only to a term which in some way introduces something composite. Thus, perhaps the following is not properly formed: 'The whole God is seen'. For this seems to imply that God is composed of parts.
And in that case a consequence from a term taken without 'whole' to the term taken with 'whole' is not valid. Thus, 'God is seen; therefore the whole God is seen' is not valid, for in this case it is implied in the consequent that God is composed of several distinct things.
On the 'other hand, if 'whole' is understood syncategorematically, then it is a sign which is distributive over integral parts—in fact, over the parts, properly speaking, of the thing which is introduced by the term to which it is added. For example, 'Totus
Sortes est minor Sorte'? is equivalent to 'Each part of Socrates is less than Socrates'; and 'Totus Sortes currit' is equivalent to 'Each part of Socrates is running'. And in this case no such proposition can be true unless the predicate agrees with each part of that whole which is introduced by the term to which the sign is added. In that case it is properly a sign and is said to distribute over integral parts, while other signs distribute over subjective parts.? This should be understood as follows: these other signs distribute over the things contained under a term, which things are not parts properly speaking, but parts only in a. broad and extended sense. But the sign 'whole' distributes over parts properly so called, whether they are parts with the same definition or parts with different definitions. And 'whole' distributes in this way over the parts of that which is introduced by the term to which it is added. For example, in 'Totus Sortes est pars
Sortis' a distribution is made over each part of Socrates, namely, over his matter and form, over his hands and feet, and so on for the others.
Nevertheless, it should be noted that sometimes—I don't care whether it is due to the strict sense of the term, or to the way in which it is used, or to the decision of someone who uses it—
'whole' distributes only over integral parts and not over essential parts. (Form and matter are called parts of this latter sort.)
Sometimes, however, it distributes over all parts, whether they are integral or essential or of any other kind.