CA TEGORICAL JUDGMENTS AND PROPOSITIONS. 1 93 



possible to distinguish between two clearly different kinds of 

 singular proposition, the indefinite and the definite. 



(i) The indefinite singular is one in which the reference is to some 

 undetermined member of a class, to the &quot; individuum vagum&quot; as 

 it is called. The quantitative sign of this is the indefinite article 

 &quot;a&quot; meaning &quot;some one&quot; (not, however, when &quot;a&quot; is equivalent 

 to any or every , in which case it introduces a general proposition), 

 or better still, &quot; a certain,&quot; &quot; quoddam&quot; &quot; aliquod&quot; ; e.g. &quot; A certain 

 man had two sons,&quot; &quot; A man was killed at the meeting &quot;. Pro 

 positions, of this kind are properly classified as particular, because 

 the reference in the predication is to an indefinite portion of the 

 denotation of the subject-class (man in the examples given) in 

 definite inasmuch as, although limited to one individual, it leaves 

 that individual undetermined, unidentified. 



(ii) The definite singular proposition is one in which the subject 

 is explicitly determined or pointed out, so to speak. It may be 

 a proper name, as in the proposition &quot; Maynooth is a town in the 

 county of Kildare &quot;. Or it may be a significant individual term 

 (28), i.e. a general term limited to one definite individual by 

 some qualifying word, 1 e.g. &quot; This man is old &quot; ; &quot; That man 

 is young &quot; ; 2 &quot; The chimney is on fire &quot; (where circumstances 

 make the reference unmistakable) ; &quot; The first Pope came from 

 Galilee &quot; ; &quot; The tenth General Persecution of the early Christians 

 took place under the Emperor Diocletian &quot; ; &quot; The last Queen of 

 England reigned for over half a century &quot;. Propositions of this 

 class are most conveniently treated as universals, because they give 

 us definite information, whereas the characteristic of the particular 

 proposition is that the reference of its predication is left indefinite. 



But it may be objected in the examples given, is not the predication made 

 about a portion only, of the denotation of the subject, not about the whole 

 denotation ? This depends on whether we take the &quot; subject &quot; of these pro 

 positions to be the class name alone regarding &quot; this,&quot; &quot; that,&quot; &quot; the,&quot; &quot; the 

 first,&quot; etc., as extrinsic signs of quantity, formally affecting it, like &quot;every,&quot; 

 &quot; none,&quot; &quot; some,&quot; etc. or rather to be the whole combination of class name 

 and individualizing epithet regarding the latter as constituting the singular 

 subject, just as the collective &quot; all &quot; constitutes the individual collection [see 

 (3) above]. It is better to interpret the subject in the latter way, and to 

 regard such propositions as universal, inasmuch as the predication is then both 

 definite and applied to the whole denotation of the subject which, in these 

 cases, is unity. 



1 Cf. VENN, Empirical Logic, pp. 163-169. 



2 &quot; These &quot; and &quot; those &quot; are signs of the concrete general proposition. 

 VOL. I. 13 



