{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"843","_score":null,"_source":{"id":843,"authors_free":[{"id":1247,"entry_id":843,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":330,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Tar\u00e1n, Leonardo","free_first_name":"Leonardo","free_last_name":"Tar\u00e1n","norm_person":{"id":330,"first_name":"Tar\u00e1n","last_name":" Leonardo ","full_name":"Tar\u00e1n, Leonardo ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1168065100","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Speusippus and Aristotle on Homonymy and Synonymy","main_title":{"title":"Speusippus and Aristotle on Homonymy and Synonymy"},"abstract":"n I904 E. HAMBRUCH2 tried to show that sometimes Aristotle himself \r\nuses synonymna in the Speusippean sense [...] and that in so doing he was influenced by Speusippus. This thesis of HAMBRUCH has been accepted \r\nby several scholars, including LANG, STENZEL, and CHERNISS 3; and, though \r\nsome doubts about its soundness were expressed from different points of view4, \r\nit was only in I97I that Mr. Jonathan BARNES5 made a systematic assault \r\non it. He contends, in the first place, that Speusippus's conception of homonyma \r\nand synonyma is essentially the same as that of Aristotle, the slight differences \r\nbetween their respective definitions of each being trivial, and, secondly, that \r\neven though in a few places Aristotle does use homonyma and synonyma as \r\nproperties of linguistic terms, this is due to the fact that Aristotle's use of these \r\nwords is not as rigid as the Categories would lead one to believe; he could not \r\nhave been influenced by Speusippus because the latter conceived homonymy \r\nand synonymy as properties of things and, in any case, if influence of one on \r\nthe other be assumed, it could as well have been Aristotle that influenced \r\nSpeusippus. \r\nThough I believe that his two main contentions are mistaken, I am here \r\nmainly concerned with the first part of BARNES' thesis; for, if he were right \r\nin believing that for Speusippus homonyma and synonyma are properties of \r\nthings and not of names or linguistic terms, then HAMBRUCH'S notion that \r\nSpeusippus did influence Aristotle when the latter uses synonymon as a property \r\nof names would be wrong, even though BARNES himself were mistaken in his \r\nanalysis of the Aristotelian passages he reviews in the second part of his paper. [pp. 73 f.]","btype":3,"date":"1978","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vll1Z7jifmlOH0h","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":330,"full_name":"Tar\u00e1n, Leonardo ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":843,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Hermes","volume":"106","issue":"1","pages":"73-99"}},"sort":["Speusippus and Aristotle on Homonymy and Synonymy"]}