ON INTERPRETATION.

And that it signifies one thing for the definition: and yet it has parts.

Difference between the parts of simples and the parts of composites.

sēmantikai significant, as we have said: nevertheless, the definition by which the noun is explained has parts: of which parts, however, none separately signifies the whole eidos form. They are therefore parts of the definition, insofar as the definition is a speech. For insofar as the whole signifies only one eidos, it is considered hōs en amerei as in an indivisible point (as we might say with Hippocrates), so that these parts of the definition cannot signify anything separately as this one adiaireton indivisible thing. Finally, to say in one word, for the sake of dianoias intellect/thought, one ameres indivisible is divisible in the definition: and in almost the same way (says Aristotle) as the katholou universal is divisible en tois kathekasta in the particulars.

However, one must distinguish between the parts of simple nouns and the parts of composite nouns: because the parts of simple nouns, as they signify nothing, so they do not seem to signify anything. But the parts of composite nouns seem to present some signification, but yet they signify nothing when separated. For, as has been said, by one noun one eidos is signified simply, and not anything else. And as Aristotle says, en henos sēmantikon significant of one thing. to de mē hen ti sēmainein, ouden sēmainein esti And to signify not one thing is to signify nothing. Insofar as they are not considered as parts of composite nouns, but as nouns, they signify something, but they do not signify that which the composite nouns signify. Thus, in the word epaprekēlēs, by itself kēlēs signifies nothing: and in the word Centaurus, Taurus by itself signifies nothing. And if you make it signify, it will signify something other than Centaurus. Thus, in the word eidōlothyton idol-offering,