ON VARIOUS POINTS OF THE ONYMATIC SYSTEM. 



443 



propositions, the meaning which they have in the common system ; and makes them, as usual, 

 three pairs of contradictories. The remaining pair ' any one X is any one Y ' and ' some 

 one X is not some one Y% are also contradictory : the first giving X and Y as singular and 

 identical. This system I called exemplar: its form is that of enunciation by selected 

 example, the unlimited right of selection being expressed by any, the possibly limited right by 

 some. This mode of expression stands opposed to the- cumular form in common use: 'All 

 X is some Y' being the cumular of ' Any one X is some one Y' ; the aggregate of all its cases. 

 Hamilton's criticism on all this can be seen in V. and VI. At this moment I am concerned 

 with only one sentence of it (V.): he is persuaded, he says, (VI. 627*), that my "'Table 

 of Exemplars' stands alone. ..in the history of science": he also (VI. 648*) calls it a "still- 

 born monstrosity." I dispute his judgment in all that relates to quantification ; I do not 

 dispute his learning: I therefore quote these words as a strong testimony to my originality; 

 and I highly value its definite character. But it only applies to half of the system: the 

 remaining half does not stand alone in history as part of my paper. I assert that the system 

 of Aristotle and his followers consists of four exemplar propositions, with unquantified 

 predicates. I therefore maintain that the exemplar system which I gave in 1850, as a 

 reduction to logical consistency of Hamilton's system, is a true' extension and step towards 

 completion of the old system. 



This assertion is mere statement of a fact, and a very simple one. Do the old logicians 

 use the singular, or do they use the plural.'' Do they say 'Every, each, any, — man', or 

 do they say 'AH men'.'' Do they say 'Some man', or ' Some men'.'' If the first, they are 

 exemplar, they speak by selection of example : for Every, Each, Any (with singular noun), 

 are Every one. Each one, Any one ; and Some, with a singular noun, is Some one. 



The modern logician says 'AH man': he speaks of the extent of the genus 'man' as 

 divisible into species; he means that the collection of individuals 'AH men' — all that exist, 

 or all that can be imagined to exist, according to the universe he is in for the time — is divi- 

 sible into smaller collections. My assertion is that 'All man is animal', thus understood, is 

 a glaringly wrong translation of the ' Omnis homo est animal' used by his foregoers, and of 

 the Tray avOpuiro's X^ioov of the leader. Our English word all, when singular, refers only to 

 some whole divisible into parts : and ' all man is animal', before the phrase undergoes logical 

 technicalization, is false, for it means that man is animal in legs and arms, body and soxil. 

 But the Latin omnis means each, every, anyone, as in sine omni periclo, omnis parturit arbos. 

 The whole divisible into parts is totus, totus ager, tota mens, totus in illis. And totus may 

 naturally'"* replace omnis, and does: while omnis does sometimes replace totus. Thus we 

 have omnis insula for the whole island, omnis sanguis for the whole blood. But omnis in 

 the singular may collect the individual from its parts, never the class ; when it is all, it is 

 all the individual, not the collected species. In Greek ttos is both oXos and eicacrTor : but Tras 

 avOpwiros is each or every man, not the whole man. Should a point be raised upon any 



' Of this, as my second paper will sliow, I had not the 

 least idea when I first gave it : in my mind the exemplar sys- 

 tem was a derivation, by correction, from that of Hamilton, 

 which certainly suggested it. 



' In French the transposition is permanent, as in tout ; tlie 

 language derives no word from omnis. In Italian, tutto and 

 ogni (singular) still translate totus and omnis. 



