CONSIGNIFICARE and ΠPOƩƩHMAINEIN: Re-evaluation of a Grammatical term

Hannah Rosén
Hebrew University
Summary

Consignificare is used in Modistic writings to express both the concept of signifying only in context and that of signifying in addition to another element. This fusion of meanings, distinct and unassociated in the corresponding Greek terms of συσσημαίνειν and ποσσημαίνειν, had come about already in the sixth century, when – as is evident from Boethius’ commentaries on Aristotle – πϱοσσημαίνειν was radically reinterpreted: while it originally meant “to mark with” or “to indicate”, this compound came to be understood as “to indicate additionally”, having been used exclusively in conjunction with accidental properties. However, a literal translation of πϱοσσημαίνειν, reflecting exactly Aristotle’s purport of the term, is extant in Varronian adsignificare.

Quick links
Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price. Direct PDF access to this article can be purchased through our e-platform.

References

Bursill-Hall, G[eoffrey] L[eslie]
1972Grammatica Speculativa of Thomas of Erfurt. Ed. with translation and commentary. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Clérico, Geneviève
1982Sanctius: Minerve ou les causes de la langue latine. Introduction, traduction et notes. Lille: Presses Universitaires de Lille.Google Scholar
Covington, Michael A[aron]
1979 “The Syntactic Theory of Thomas of Erfurt”. Linguistics 17.465–496. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1984Syntactic Theory in the High Middle Ages: Modistic models of sentence structure. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dinneen, Francis P., S.J.
1974Review article on Pinborg (1972). HL 1.221–249. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ernout, Alfred
1954Aspects du vocabulaire latin. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Grabmann, Martin
1936Handschriftliche Forschungen und Funde zu den philosophischen Schriften des Petrus Hispanus […] . (= Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften; Philos.-hist. Abt. 1936/9). München (Repr. in Gesammelte Akademieabhandlungen, 1123–1254. Paderborn-München: Schöningh 1979.)Google Scholar
1937Die Introductiones in logicam des Wilhelm von Shyreswood. (= Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften; Philos.-hist. Abt. 1937/10). München (Repr. in Gesammelte Akademieabhandlungen, 1255–1360.)Google Scholar
Kretzmann, Norman
1966William of Sherwood’s Introduction to Logic. Translated with an introduction and notes. Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
1982 “Syncategoremata, exponibilia, sophismata”. The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy ed. by Norman Kretzman et al., 211–245. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Donnell, J. Reginald, C.S.B.
1941 “The Syncategoremata of William of Sherwood”. Medieval Studies 3.46–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinborg, Jan
1972Logik und Semantik im Mittelalter: Ein Überblick. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog.Google Scholar
Rosén, Haiim B.
1962Eine Laut- und Formenlehre der herodotischen Sprachform. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Spade, Paul Vincent
1982 “The Semantics of Terms”. The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy ed. by Norman Kretzmann et al., 188–196. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thurot, Charles
1869Extraits de divers manuscrits latins pour servir à l’histoire des doctrines grammaticales au moyen âge. Paris: Imprimerie impériale. (Repr., Frankfurt: Minerva 1964.)Google Scholar