论文部分内容阅读
《解释篇》探讨的究竟是逻辑的内容还是语法的内容,是13世纪拉丁语哲学家反复讨论的问题。本文主要从3个方面探讨:第一,既然Perihermeneias主要关注表述性陈述,那么为什么它被翻译为De Interpretatione而非De Enunciatione,即《解释篇》的内容究竟是逻辑的还是语法的还是逻辑与语法的联合;第二,中世纪拉丁语注释家如何看待亚里士多德在文本中对于名词和动词这两类词项的处理;第三,需要特别指出的是,他们又是如何看待出现在亚里士多德文本中的非限定动词和名词的。本文从达契亚的马丁、罗伯特·基尔沃比、大阿尔伯特以及法弗舍姆的西蒙等人的角度出发,尝试找出这一时期处理这些问题的异同。
Whether the content of the logic or the content of the grammar is discussed in the “interpretation chapter” is a question repeatedly discussed by Latin philosophers in the 13th century. This article mainly discusses from three aspects: First, since Perihermeneias mainly concerns representational statements, why is it interpreted as De Interpretation but not as De Enunciatione, that is, whether the content of the Interpretation is logical or grammatical or logical and grammatical. Second, how do medieval commentators in Latin regard Aristotle’s handling of terms such as nouns and verbs in the text; and thirdly, it needs to be particularly pointed out how they see it in Asia. Unqualified verbs and nouns in the Richmond text. This article attempts to find out the similarities and differences between these issues in this period from the perspectives of Martin of Martin Davis, Robert Kirbyvoby of Albert, Albert of Great Albert, and Simon of Faversham.