Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site frog.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!frog!tdh
From: tdh@frog.UUCP (T. Dave Hudson)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Aristotle on language
Message-ID: <303@frog.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 10-Sep-85 13:39:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: frog.303
Posted: Tue Sep 10 13:39:15 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 12-Sep-85 11:47:36 EDT
Reply-To: frog!tdh
Organization: Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA
Lines: 31

From Metaphysics, Book 4 (note especially the fourth
sentence):

"Firstly, then, this much is clearly true: that the phrase
`to be' or `not to be' means something definite, so that not
everything can be both in a given state and not in a given
state.  Then, we would allow that `man' means one thing only
-- let it be `two-footed animal'.  What I mean when I say
that something `means one thing' is this:  if man is such
and such, then for anything that is a man that is what being
a man will be.  Nor does it make any difference if someone
says that a word means more than one thing, provided the
meanings are limited in number;  for each different account
could be given a different name.  I refer to cases where,
for instance, one might say that `man' meant not one but
many things, and that `two-footed animal' was the account of
one of them, but that there were many others, though they
were limited in number;  then one could apply a particular
name to each different account.  If, however, this were not
the case, and one were to say that a word had an infinite
number of meanings, then plainly there could be no account
of anything; for to mean no single thing is to mean nothing;
and if words mean nothing, there is an end to discussion
between people and, indeed, really to reflection with
oneself.  For it is not possible to think without thinking
of some single thing; and if it is possible to think of this
single thing, it must be given a single name."

The quote above is clear, but it does not address criteria
for choosing the term to describe with a given definition.

				David Hudson