He then proceeds to enumerate the ten diversities of Proprium which I have given in the text: this paragraph also is very obscure.
I cannot but repeat the remark here (which I made supra [p. 318]), that the contents of this paragraph also belong to the former investigation (viz., How ought the Proprium to be set out and described?) rather than to the present investigation (viz., Whether the alleged Proprium is really a Proprium of the assigned subject or not?).
[233] Topic. V. v. p. 134, a. 32: ἢ ἁπλῶς, καθάπερ ζῴου τὸ ζῆν. Is not τὸ ζῆν included in the essentia (τὸ τὶ ἦν εἶναι) of ζῷον? If so, how can it be admitted as a proprium thereof?
Now each of these varieties of the Proprium is liable to its own mode of erroneous setting out or description. Thus the corresponding errors will be:—[234]
a. Not to add the qualifying words by nature.
b. Not to state the proprium as simply belonging, when it does only belong to the subject now, and may presently cease to belong.
c. Not to state the proprium as belonging to the species. If he omits these words, he may be told that it belongs to one variety alone among the species (e.g., should it be a superlative) and not to others: perhaps it may belong to some conspicuously, and to others faintly. Or perhaps, if he does add the express words — to the species, he may err, inasmuch as there exists no real species properly so called.
e. f. Not to distinguish whether he means to affirm it of B by reason of A, or of A directly: he will lay himself open to the objection that his proprium, and the subject term of which he declares it to be a proprium, are not co-extensive in predication.
g. h. Not to distinguish whether he intends as subject the person possessing, or the possession. If he leaves this undetermined, the objector may attack him on one ground or the other.
i. k. Not to distinguish whether he means as subject the partaker, or the genus which is partaken. Here too the objector will have ground for attack either from one side or from the other.