ON INTERPRETATION. 9

and not itself) so also the noun of one, as it is of one, is not the noun of two, nor is it divisible into several notions. Wherefore, the noun, having regard to the one thing signified, is devoid of any sēmantikēs significant part. And although there are certain nouns of synthēseōs composition and composite nouns, whose parts might seem to signify something of the whole named thing: yet because those parts, if separated, do not signify the whole eidos form/essence of the thing, it signifies nothing by reason of that whole eidos. For since to eidos the form is one and very simple, it is either signified entirely or signified not at all: just as a point is either touched entirely (since it is indivisible) or is not touched at all. Thus, Calippus signifies uniquely and entirely the tode ti this particular thing itself: but Kalón Beautiful, indeed, signifies that which is not Calippus, that is, something different from Calippus: just as hippos horse also does. Therefore, with respect to the whole of Calippus, neither kalón nor hippos signifies anything. Thus, Melchisedech signifies a tode ti this particular thing and something individual, and neither "Melchi" separated, nor "sedech" signifies that which Melchisedech signifies: indeed, the separated parts signify nothing, because one separated part does not signify that adiaireton indivisible thing which was to be signified. These things must be noted diligently, lest we be deceived in the signification of nouns, hōsper hoi tōn onomatōn kai hoi tōn nomismatōn, kai tōn psēphōn tēs dynameōs apeiroi just as those who are ignorant of the power of names, coins, and calculation. For it is not possible that we constitute any statement dialectically and skillfully unless we have deeply perceived the nature of the noun.

How composite nouns signify one thing.

Although the noun has no parts...