[1] Mill, ch. iv.; Bain, p. 86.
In any case, the disjunctive is more than any combination of Hypotheticals, and really tends to be Categorical, and ought not to be claimed as Conditional.
Which are Categorical?
2. We will now look at these Judgments in order, consider their real meaning, and also ascertain the limits of the Categorical Judgment, viz. that which affirms the existence of its Subject, or in other words, asserts a fact.
The Particular Judgment
(i) The Particular Judgment of common Logic, “Some S. is P.,” has different meanings according as it is understood naturally, or tied down to be a result of enumeration.
In any case it is an imperfect, unscientific Judgment, in which the mind cannot rest, because it has an undefined limitation imposed upon the Subject.
Its natural meaning
(a) For the natural meaning, take the example, “Some engines can drag a train at a mile a minute for a long distance.” [1] This does not mean a certain number of engines, though of course they are a certain number. It {117} means certain engines of a particular make, not specified in the Judgment. The Judgment is Categorical, because the undefined reservation implies a reference to something unanalysed, but merely touched or presented in experience. If it was a mere idea it would have to be clear; and if the full description or definition were inserted, the Judgment would cease to affirm the existence of the engines in question. And the Judgment itself challenges this completion.
[1] To be accurate, the Judgment would demand the insertion of precise details about train, distance, and other matters. But this illustrates the point of the text, because the assignment of such details would naturally extend to the Subject, and then the “Some” would be displaced.