User:Jean-François Monteil de Quimper

Jean-François Monteil draws the attention to the importance of the chapter 7 of (On Interpretation De Interpretatione Peri Hermeneias)in so far as it is at the origin of the logical square. The defects of this founding text necessarily had serious consequences,to say the least, in logic and linguistics. There is a confusion of the level of an underlying logical system and that of the system of natural language. The sense of All men are white, a natural proposition, for instance, is mistakenly identified with that of the logical universal affirmative: Whatever x may be , if x is man, then x is white. The potential reader should note that a natural language may express the universal quantity not only by means of All men are white everyman is white but also by such expressions as Men are white Man is white. All men are white is a natural universal affirmative, which is marked due to the use of the mark represented by the quantifying morpheme: all whereas Man is white Men are white are unmarked sentences because devoid of quantifyers like :all,some ,every. These sentences embody what can be called the natural unmarked universal proposition. Both natural universals affirmative have the same referent in that they refer to the same state of things and make known the same fact. The sentences of natural language : Man is white and All men are white both express the content of the logical universal affirmative mentioned above:Whatever x may be, if x is man, then x is white. Now,if they have the same referent, they have not the same meaning in so far as their power of contradiction has not at all the same impact. Man is white contradicts Man is not white, which can be described as a natural universal negative whereas All men are white contradicts Some men are not white, to be described as the natural particular negative. Do Man is not white and Some men are not white have the same content ? Of course not. All men are white and Man is white have the same referent but they have not the same meaning in that they do not exclude the same thing. What is expressed by the logical universal Whatever x may be, if ... is the common referent of two natural universals All men...on the one hand and Man is white on the other, differing in form and meaning. Therefore, it is illegitimate to identify the logical universal with the natural universal that is marked: All men..since the content of Whatever x may be, if x is man, then x is also apprehended by the other natural universal that is unmarked,namely Man is white or Men are white. I advise the reader to consult my paper Du Nouveau sur Aristote..edited par the journal L'Enseignement philosophique. Jean-François Monteil draws the attention to the importance of the chapter 7 of (On Interpretation De Interpretatione Peri Hermeneias)in so far as it is at the origin of the logical square. The defects of this founding text necessarily had serious consequences,to say the least, in logic and linguistics. There is a confusion of the level of an underlying logical system and that of the system of natural language. The sense of All men are white, a natural proposition, for instance, is mistakenly identified with that of the logical universal affirmative: Whatever x may be , if x is man, then x is white. The potential reader should note that a natural language may express the universal quantity not only by means of All men are white everyman is white but also by such expressions as Men are white Man is white. All men are white is a natural universal affirmative, which is marked due to the use of the mark represented by the quantifying morpheme: all whereas Man is white Men are white are unmarked sentences because devoid of quantifyers like :all,some ,every. These sentences embody what can be called the natural unmarked universal proposition. Both natural universals affirmative have the same referent in that they refer to the same state of things and make known the same fact. The sentences of natural language : Man is white and All men are white both express the content of the logical universal affirmative mentioned above:Whatever x may be, if x is man, then x is white. Now,if they have the same referent, they have not the same meaning in so far as their power of contradiction has not at all the same impact. Man is white contradicts Man is not white, which can be described as a natural universal negative whereas All men are white contradicts Some men are not white, to be described as the natural particular negative. Do Man is not white and Some men are not white have the same content ? Of course not. All men are white and Man is white have the same referent but they have not the same meaning in that they do not exclude the same thing. What is expressed by the logical universal Whatever x may be, if ... is the common referent of two natural universals All men...on the one hand and Man is white on the other, differing in form and meaning. Therefore, it is illegitimate to identify the logical universal with the natural universal that is marked: All men..since the content of Whatever x may be, if x is man, then x is also apprehended by the other natural universal that is unmarked,namely Man is white or Men are white. I advise the reader to consult my paper Du Nouveau sur Aristote..edited par the journal L'Enseignement philosophique.