Volume 7, Issue 1-2
  • ISSN 0302-5160
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9781
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


SUMMARYThe well-known controversy about the (supposed) difference between sen-tences such as "cuiuslibet hominis asinus currit" and "asinus cuiuslibet hominis currit" is delineated and discussed. It is argued that the issue involved is entirely focused on the question whether or not nouns (names), by their own nature (secundum propriam inventionem), refer to existing things alone. The different answers to this problem (by Bacon, William of Sherwood, and others against certain Parisian masters, among others) are placed within the general frame-work of medieval semantic thought.RÉSUMÉIl s'agit ici d'examiner la controverse bien connue au sujet de la difference entre des constructions comme "cuiuslibet hominis asinus currit" et "asinus cuiuslibet hominis currit". L'enjeu de cette controverse, nous montre l'auteur, est entierement centree sur la question de savoir si, oui ou non, les noms (denominations) ne se referent par nature {secundum propriam inventionem) qu'a des choses existantes. Les differentes reponses (de Bacon, Guillaume de Sherwood et d'autres, face a certains maitres parisiens, inter alios) sont ici replacees dans le cadre general de la semantique medievale.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error