[49] Ibid. a. 9-35.
[50] Ibid. a. 36.
[51] Ibid. b. 4.
[52] Ibid. b. 13-20.
[53] Ibid. b. 21-28.
[54] Ibid. b. 28.
[55] Ibid. p. 107, a. 3-17.
[56] Ibid. a. 18.
[57] Ibid. a. 32-35.
Again, it will be useful to bring together the same term in two different conjunctions, and to compare the definitions of the two. Define both of them, and then deduct what is peculiar to each definitum: if the remainder be different, the term will be equivocal; if the remainder be the same, the term will be univocal. Thus, λευκὸν σῶμα will be defined, a body having such and such a colour: λευκὴ φωνή, a voice easily and distinctly heard: deduct σῶμα from the first definition, and φωνὴ from the second, the remainder will be totally disparate; therefore, the term λευκόν is equivocal.[58] Sometimes, also, the ambiguity may be found in definitions themselves, where the same term is used to explain subjects that are not the same; whether such use is admissible, has to be considered.[59] If the term be univocal, two conjunctions of it may always be compared as to greater or less, or in respect of likeness; whenever this cannot be, the term is equivocal.[60] If, again, the term is used as a differentia for two genera quite distinct and independent of each other, it must be equivocal; for genera that are unconnected and not subordinate one to the other, have their differentiæ also disparate.[61] And, conversely, if the term be such that the differentiæ applied to it are disparate, we may know it to be an equivocal term. The like, if the term be used as a species in some of its conjunctions, and as a differentia in others.[62]