from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition
- adj. Having only one meaning; unambiguous.
- n. A word or term having only one meaning.
from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License
- adj. Having only one possible meaning.
- adj. Containing only one vowel.
from the GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English
- adj. Having one meaning only; -- contrasted with
- adj. Having unison of sound, as the octave in music. See Unison, n., 2.
- adj. Having always the same drift or tenor; uniform; certain; regular.
- adj. Unequivocal; indubitable.
- n. A generic term, or a term applicable in the same sense to all the species it embraces.
- n. A word having but one meaning.
from The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia
- In mathematics, having only one result.
- Having one meaning only; having the meaning unmistakable: opposed to equivocal.
- In music, having a unisonous sound.
- Certain; not to be doubted or mistaken.
- Producing something of its own nature: as, univocal generation; a univocal cause.
- n. A word having only one signification or meaning; a generic word, or a word predicable of many different species, as fish, tree.
from WordNet 3.0 Copyright 2006 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.
- adj. admitting of no doubt or misunderstanding; having only one meaning or interpretation and leading to only one conclusion
First, there are analogical terms which are univocal in a broad sense of ˜univocal™.
Does Roger Bacon, in his best work, in which he treats of light and vision, express himself much more clearly than Aristotle when he says light is created by means of multiplying its luminous species, which action is called univocal and conformable to the agent?
If we totally lose our ability to recognize and to understand irony, then we will be doomed to a kind of univocal discourse, which is alright I suppose for politicians 'speeches and perhaps for certain representatives of popular religion, but will leave us badly defrauded.
All I will add in this short post is that the apostle Peter, as depicted in the Acts of the Apostles, seems not to agree with your depiction of the "univocal" expression of all New Testament figures, when he is presented as saying "I now realise how true it is that God does not show favoratism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right" Acts 10:34-35.
But it was stated above that the word 'univocal' was applied to those things which had both name and definition in common.
This distrust of totalizing mechanisms extends even to the author; thus postmodern writers often celebrate chance over craft and employ metafiction to undermine the author’s "univocal" control (the control of only one voice).
Transubstantiation is a far more "univocal" reading of the words "This is my body" than Zwingli's interpretation.
Very interesting, one might think—except that the book presents no evidence that any Protestant reformer actually espoused "univocal metaphysics," in the author's phrase.
The roots of this mindset reach back centuries, Mr. Gregory says, to the late-medieval theologian John Duns Scotus, who argued that God and man both exist in the same essence of things and that therefore man may speak of God with "univocal" as opposed to "analogical" language.
Mr. Gregory does mention the Swiss Reformation leader Ulrich Zwingli and his disavowal of Christ's real presence in the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper, but that position is hardly the "logical corollary" to univocal metaphysics that the author claims.