from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License
- adj. Of a word, capable of being employed by itself as a term, such as "man", unlike "many".
from the GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English
- adj. Capable of being employed by itself as a term; -- said of a word.
from The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia
- Conveying a whole term, that is, either the subject or the predicate of a proposition, in a single word. Sometimes incorrectly written categoreumatic or cathegreumatic.
- n. In logic, a word which is capable of being employed by itself as a term.
from WordNet 3.0 Copyright 2006 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.
- adj. of a term or phrase capable of standing as the subject or (especially) the predicate of a proposition
The syncategorematic words were naturally seen as indicating the structure or form of the proposition, while the categorematic words supplied its “matter.”
In sum, it is not clear how the distinction between categorematic and syncategorematic terms, so natural in the framework of a term logic, can be extended to a post-Fregean function/argument conception of propositional structure.
However, once we have thrown out the old subject/predicate model, we can no longer identify the categorematic terms with the subject and predicate terms, as the medievals did.
It is valid for any uniform substitution of its categorematic terms.
His idea is that the syncategoreumata must have some sort of signification, but not the same as the categorematic words.
The latter are defined as words that do not have a definitive meaning on their own, but acquire one only in combination with other, categorematic words.
Buridan and other late medieval logicians proposed that categorematic expressions constitute the
(They are of course categorematic in the grammatical sense, in which prepositions and adverbs are equally clearly syncategorematic.)
Part I goes on to lay out a fairly detailed theory of terms, including the distinctions between (a) categorematic and syncategorematic terms, (b) abstract and concrete terms, and (c) absolute and connotative terms.
In making this claim, Brentano relies on the distinction between categorematic and syncategorematic expressions, i.e., between terms that purport to denote entities, and expressions like “is”, “and”,