Categorical Propositions

Now that we've taken notice of many of the difficulties that can be caused by sloppy use
of ordinary language in argumentation, we're ready to begin the more precise study of
deductive reasoning. Here we'll achieve the greater precision by eliminating ambiguous
words and phrases from ordinary language and carefully defining those that remain.
The basic strategy is to create a narrowly restricted formal systeman artificial, rigidly
structured logical language within which the validity of deductive arguments can be
discerned with ease. Only after we've become familiar with this limited range of cases
will we consider to what extent our ordinary-language argumentation can be made to
conform to its structure.

Our initial effort to pursue this strategy is the ancient but worthy method of categorical
logic. This approach was originally developed by Aristotle, codified in greater detail by
medieval logicians, and then interpreted mathematically by George Boole and John
Venn in the nineteenth century. Respected by many generations of philosophers as the
the chief embodiment of deductive reasoning, this logical system continues to be useful
in a broad range of ordinary circumstances.

Terms and Propositions

We'll start very simply, then work our way toward a higher level. The basic unit of
meaning or content in our new deductive system is the categorical term. Usually
expressed grammatically as a noun or noun phrase, each categorical term designates a
class of things. Notice that these are (deliberately) very broad notions: a categorical term
may designate any classwhether it's a natural species or merely an arbitrary collection
of things of any variety, real or imaginary. Thus, "cows," "unicorns," "square circles,"
"philosophical concepts," "things weighing more than fifty kilograms," and "times when the earth is
nearer than 75 million miles from the sun," are all categorical terms.

Notice also that each categorical term cleaves the world into exactly two mutually
exclusive and jointly exhaustive parts: those things to which the term applies and those
things to which it does not apply. For every class designated by a categorical term, there
is another class, its complement, that includes everything excluded from the original
class, and this complementary class can of course be designated by its own categorical
term. Thus, "cows" and "non-cows" are complementary classes, as are "things weighing more
than fifty kilograms" and "things weighing fifty kilograms or less." Everything in the world (in
fact, everything we can talk or think about) belongs either to the class designated by a
categorical term or to its complement; nothing is omitted.
Now let's use these simple building blocks to assemble something more interesting. A
categorical proposition joins together exactly two categorical terms and asserts that
some relationship holds between the classes they designate. (For our own convenience,
we'll call the term that occurs first in each categorical proposition its subject term and
other its predicate term.) Thus, for example, "All cows are mammals" and "Some philosophy
teachers are young mothers" are categorical propositions whose subject terms are "cows" and
"philosophy teachers" and whose predicate terms are "mammals" and "young mothers"
respectively.

Each categorical proposition states that there is some logical relationship that holds
between its two terms. In this context, a categorical term is said to be distributed if that
proposition provides some information about every member of the class designated by
that term. Thus, in our first example above, "cows" is distributed because the proposition
in which it occurs affirms that each and every cow is also a mammal, but " mammals" is
undistributed because the proposition does not state anything about each and every
member of that class. In the second example, neither of the terms is distributed, since
this proposition tells us only that the two classes overlap to some (unstated) extent.

Quality and Quantity

Since we can always invent new categorical terms and consider the possible relationship
of the classes they designate, there are indefinitely many different individual categorical
propositions. But if we disregard the content of these propositions, what classes of
things they're about, and concentrate on their form, the general manner in which they
conjoin their subject and predicate terms, then we need only four distinct kinds of
categorical proposition, distinguished from each other only by their quality and
quantity, in order to assert anything we like about the relationship between two classes.

The quality of a categorical proposition indicates the nature of the relationship it affirms
between its subject and predicate terms: it is an affirmative proposition if it states that
the class designated by its subject term is included, either as a whole or only in part,
within the class designated by its predicate term, and it is a negative proposition if it
wholly or partially excludes members of the subject class from the predicate class.
Notice that the predicate term is distributed in every negative proposition but
undistributed in all affirmative propositions.

The quantity of a categorical proposition, on the other hand, is a measure of the degree
to which the relationship between its subject and predicate terms holds: it is a universal
proposition if the asserted inclusion or exclusion holds for every member of the class
designated by its subject term, and it is a particular proposition if it merely asserts that
the relationship holds for one or more members of the subject class. Thus, you'll see that
the subject term is distributed in all universal propositions but undistributed in every
particular proposition.

Combining these two distinctions and representing the subject and predicate terms
respectively by the letters "S" and "P," we can uniquely identify the four possible forms
of categorical proposition:

A universal affirmative proposition (to which, following the practice of medieval

logicians, we will refer by the letter "A") is of the form

All S are P.

Such a proposition asserts that every member of the class designated by the
subject term is also included in the class designated by the predicate term. Thus,
it distributes its subject term but not its predicate term.

A universal negative proposition (or "E") is of the form

No S are P.

This proposition asserts that nothing is a member both of the class designated by
the subject term and of the class designated by the predicate terms. Since it
reports that every member of each class is excluded from the other, this
proposition distributes both its subject term and its predicate term.

A particular affirmative proposition ("I") is of the form

Some S are P.

A proposition of this form asserts that there is at least one thing which is a
member both of the class designated by the subject term and of the class
designated by the predicate term. Both terms are undistributed in propositions of
this form.

Finally, a particular negative proposition ("O") is of the form

Some S are not P.

Such a proposition asserts that there is at least one thing which is a member of
the class designated by the subject term but not a member of the class designated
by the predicate term. Since it affirms that the one or more crucial things that
 they are distinct from each and every member of the predicate class, a
proposition of this form distributes its predicate term but not its subject term.

Although the specific content of any actual categorical proposition depends upon the
categorical terms which occur as its subject and predicate, the logical form of the
categorical proposition must always be one of these four types.

The Square of Opposition

When two categorical propositions are of different forms but share exactly the same
subject and predicate terms, their truth is logically interdependent in a variety of
interesting ways, all of which are conveniently represented in the traditional "square of
opposition."

"All S are P." (A)- - - - - - -(E) "No S are P."

|* *|
* *
| * * |
*
| * * |
* *
|* *|
"Some S are P." (I)--- --- ---(O) "Some S are not P."

Propositions that appear diagonally across from each other in this diagram (A and O on
the one hand and E and I on the other) are contradictories. No matter what their subject
and predicate terms happen to be (so long as they are the same in both) and no matter
how the classes they designate happen to be related to each other in fact, one of the
propositions in each contradictory pair must be true and the other false. Thus, for
example, "No squirrels are predators" and "Some squirrels are predators" are contradictories
because either the classes designated by the terms "squirrel" and "predator" have at least
one common member (in which case the I proposition is true and the E proposition is
false) or they do not (in which case the E is true and the I is false). In exactly the same
sense, the A and O propositions, "All senators are politicians" and "Some senators are not
politicians" are also contradictories.

The universal propositions that appear across from each other at the top of the square
(A and E) are contraries. Assuming that there is at least one member of the class
designated by their shared subject term, it is impossible for both of these propositions to
be true, although both could be false. Thus, for example, "All flowers are colorful objects"
and "No flowers are colorful objects" are contraries: if there are any flowers, then either all of
them are colorful (making the A true and the E false) or none of them are (making the E
true and the A false) or some of them are colorful and some are not (making both the A
and the E false).

Particular propositions across from each other at the bottom of the square (I and O), on
the other hand, are the subcontraries. Again assuming that the class designated by their
subject term has at least one member, it is impossible for both of these propositions to
be false, but possible for both to be true. "Some logicians are professors" and "Some logicians are
not professors" are subcontraries, for example, since if there any logicians, then either at
least one of them is a professor (making the I proposition true) or at least one is not a
professor (making the O true) or some are and some are not professors (making both
the I and the O true).

Finally, the universal and particular propositions on either side of the square of
opposition (A and I on the one left and E and O on the right) exhibit a relationship
known as subalternation. Provided that there is at least one member of the class
designated by the subject term they have in common, it is impossible for the universal
proposition of either quality to be true while the particular proposition of the same
quality is false. Thus, for example, if it is universally true that " All sheep are ruminants",
then it must also hold for each particular case, so that "Some sheep are ruminants" is true,
and if "Some sheep are ruminants" is false, then "All sheep are ruminants" must also be false,
always on the assumption that there is at least one sheep. The same relationships hold
for corresponding E and O propositions.

Philosophy 103: Introduction to Logic

Venn Diagrams of Standard Form Categorical Propositions

Abstract: The technique of representing statements by means of pictures is explained.

I. One way to view the "logical geography" of the standard-form categorical propositions is to
use diagrams invented by John Venn, a friend of Lewis Carroll.

A. Perhaps, you have been introduced to diagrams used in set theory; the Venn Diagrams are
somewhat different.

B. Most descriptions of Venn Diagrams introduce the three symbols used as follows.
 1. An empty circle is used to represent a subject class or a
predicate class and is generally so labeled with an S or a
P. Putting the name of the actual subject or predicate class
next to the circle is preferred. The area inside the circle
represents members of the class in question, if there are
any. The area outside the circle represents all other
individuals (the complementary class) if there are any.
Note that the label "things" is written outside the circle,
even though "things," if there are any, would be inside the
circle.

2. Shading or many parallel lines are used to indicate

areas which are known to be empty. I.e., there are no
individuals existing in that area. E.g., the diagram to the
right represents the class of "Yeti."

3. The third symbol used is an "X" which represents "at

least one" or "some" individual exists in the area in which
it is placed. The diagram to the right indicates "some
thing."

C. Perhaps the most important symbol of all is the blank area where no marks of any kind
are made. If an area is not shaded or has no "X," then it is not considered empty, but the
blank area represents "no information is known." In other words, a blank area represents the
possibility of something existing in that area, nothing more. It is also worth noting, that if an
"X" is drawn on a line, the "X" represents only the possibility of being "on either side," but
where it is exactly is not known.

II. Given this interpretation, the four standard-form categorical propositions are diagrammed
as follows.

1. The A form, "All S is P," is shown in the diagram to the

right. Notice that all of the S's are pushed out, so to speak,
into the P class. If S's exist, they must be inside the P circle
since the left-hand lune of the diagram is shaded and so is
empty.

2. The E form, "No S is P," is shown in the diagram to the

right. Notice that the lens area of the diagram is shaded and
so no individual can exist in this area. The lens area is where
S and P are in common; hence, "No S is P." All S, if there
are any, are in the left-hand lune, and all P, if there are any,
are relegated to the right-hand lune.
 3. The I form, "Some S is P," is much more easily seen. The
"X" in the lens, as shown in the diagram to the right,
indicates at least one individual in the S class is also in the P
class. Note that the blank lunes indicate that we do not know
whether or not there are individuals in these areas. In fact,
we have no information.

4. The O form, "Some S is not P," is also easily drawn. The

S that is not a P is marked with an "X" in the S-lune. This
area is not within the P circle and so is not a P. It is worth
while to note, that from this diagram we cannot conclude
that "Some S is P" because there is no "X" in the lens area.
Thus, studying this diagram will explain why "Some S is not
P" does not entail "Some S is P."

III. For practice, diagram the following statements. The diagrams provided in the answers are
only partially correct since they are generic A, E, I, or O diagrams. Your answers should have
the subject and predicate classes clearly labeled.

1. All orchids are Cattyleas.

2. All ribosomes are structures in the cytoplasm.

3. No Zurich gnomes are peddlers.

4. No rap is hard rock.

 5. Some musicians are not pianists.

6. Some dragsters are not funny cars.

7. Some Presidents are forgetful persons.

8. Some sculptors are not painters.

V. The use of Venn Diagrams to evaluate two-premiss arguments is explained in the class
concerning Syllogistic Venn Diagrams.

The Categorical Proposition in Logic

Posted Mon, 05/30/2011 - 12:51 by admin
 2011 by Jensen dG. Maebog

IN LOGIC, the statement that relates two classes or categories is called a categorical
proposition. The classes in question are denoted respectively by the subject term and the
predicate term. In effect, this type of proposition gives a direct assertion of agreement or
disagreement between the two terms. The proposition asserts that either all or part of the
class denoted by the subject term is included in or excluded from the classes denoted by the
predicate term. Here are some examples of categorical statement.

1. All dogs are mammals.

2. No acids are bases.
3. Some philosophers are mathematicians.
4. Some Americans are not cheaters.

The first example asserts that the whole class of dogs are included in the class of mammals;
the second declares that the entire class of acids are excluded from the class of bases; the third
states that a part of philosophers are included in the class of mathematicians; and the last one
claims that a part of the class of Americans are excluded from the class of cheaters.

Quantity of Categorical Statements

The quantity of a categorical statement is either universal or particular, depending on whether
the statement makes a claim about all members or just some members of the class denoted by the
subject term. The quantity of the subject term determines the quantity of the whole proposition.
Since the propositions which take the form All S are P and No S are P obviously assert
something about every member of class S, they are considered universal.
e.g. All balls are round objects; No fish are rational being.

Statements that take the form Some S are P and Some S are not P logically assert something
about at least one but not all members of class S and hence, are particular.
e.g. Some politicians are females; Some government officials are not corrupt.

In summary, the quantity of a categorical statement can be determined through the

quantifier of the subject term: All and No imply universal quantity, while
some, particular quantity.

Quality of Categorical Statements

The quality of a categorical statement is either affirmative or negative, depending on whether
the statement affirms or denies class membership. Propositions which have the form All S are P
and Some S are P are affirmative because in these forms, the subject asserts the predicate.
e.g. All rocks are solid objects; Some animals are carnivores.

On the other hand, the predicate is denied or negated by the subject in the statements which have
the form No S are P and Some S are not P. Hence, they are negative.
e.g. No women are priests (=All women are not priests); Some animals are not aquatic
creatures.

Evidently, the copula indicates the quality of a proposition. If the copula is affirmative (am, is,
are), the entire proposition is affirmative, regardless of whether or not the terms are negative.
Similarly, negative copula (am not, is not, are not) necessarily makes the whole proposition
negative.

The Standard Form of Categorical Propositions

Combining the quality and quantity of propositions results to four structures of statements known
as the four standard forms of categorical propositions:

1. Universal Affirmative where the whole of the subject class is included in the predicate class.
e.g. All reptiles are animals.
All men are mortals.

2. Universal Negative where the whole of the subject class is excluded in the predicate class.
e.g. No vegetarian are carnivores.
 No moons are planets.

3. Particular Affirmative where a part of the subject class is included in the predicate class.
e.g Some congressmen are smokers.
Some medicines are drugs.

4. Particular Negative where a part of the subject class is excluded in the predicate class.
e.g Some dogs are not Dalmatians.
Some students are not athletes.

Since the early Middle Ages, the four types of categorical statements have been designated by
letters:

A for Universal Affirmative (All S are P)

E for Universal Negative (No S are P)
I for Particular Affirmative (Some S are P)
O for Particular Negative (Some S are not P)

The letters A and I come from the first two vowels of the Latin word affirmo, which means I
affirm and are thus assigned to two affirmative propositions. Letters E and O come from the two
vowels of the Latin word nego which means I deny and are so designated to two negative
propositions.
At this point, it should be made clear that a categorical statement, in standard form, contains
four elements:

1. Quantifier the word that indicates the range of individuals or items referred to in the subject
term (All for A proposition; No for E proposition; Some for I and O propositions).

2. Subject term that which designates the idea about which the pronouncement is made. (e.g.
the word men in All men are mortals.)

3. Predicate term that which designates the idea which is affirmed or denied of the subject.
(e.g. the word mammals in All dogs are mammals.)

4. Copula is the linking verb is or is not (am, am not, are, are no,) expressing the agreement or
disagreement between the subject term and the predicate term.

As our purpose in Logic is to study the mode in which the mind represents the real order, the
question of present, past or future is purely accidental. The time-determination does not affect the
mental representation as such. Therefore, the copula should always be in the present tense of the
verb to be as it must express the present act of the mind.
Notice that even propositions which refer to some past or future event can be reduced to
present tense without altering the meaning. For instance, The Republicans did not win the last
election can be translated as The Republican party is not the party which won the last election.

Reduction to the Logical Structure

Notice that the four standard forms of categorical propositions follow the same structure:
Quantifier-Subject term-Copula-Predicate term (Q-S-C-P). This arrangement is the logical
structure of a sentence which is in the indicative mood, stated in the present tense, and the
(logical) predicate of which is separated from the copula. Having this form, sentences can be used
in logical arguments.
Many ordinary discourse statements do not display their logical form. To meet the needs of
Logic, we have the right to change their wordings as long as the original meaning of the judgment
remains the same. Thus, sentences have to be translated in a manner to conform to the Q-S-C-P
form that they may be used in logical processes and analysis. In many occasions, a statement may
appear clumsy or unusual when converted to logical form, but we are not concerned here with
beautiful prose but with the substance of the thought expressed.

The following steps are helpful in transforming ordinary discourse statements into standard form:
1. Identify the two classes in the statement. Make sure to have two nouns or noun phrases which
categorize kinds of things. Where a class term is not mentioned, use a parameter or category that
captures the kind of things referred to (people, objects, places, etc.).
2. Identify which class is included in or excluded from the other. Use the former as the subject
term, the latter as the predicate term.
3. Use the quantifier All if all of the subject class is included in the predicate term; No if all of
the subject class is excluded from the predicate term; some if only part is included in or
excluded from the predicate class.
4. If the subject term is totally or partly included in the predicate term, then the statement is
affirmative; if the subject term is totally or partly excluded from the predicate term, then the
statement is negative.
5. After determining the proper quantifier, copula, and two proper class terms, write the correct A,
E, I, or O statement following the Q-S-C-P order.

The following are some of the guidelines which could further help in properly reducing ordinary
statements to the standard categorical form:
1. Translate general statement as universal statement, unless it points to a particular usage.
The statement Dogs bark should therefore take the quantifier All. But the proposition
Books are expensive should take the quantifier Some.

2. Add the missing complement to an adjective or to a describing phrase to show that they refer to
classes.

e.g. Some politicians are kind. Some politicians are kind people.

All parents love their children All parents are persons who love their children.

Some students passed the board exam. Some students are board passers.

3. Quantifiers that indicate universality or particularity should be replaced by all or no or

some, correspondingly.
All should be used in place of every, any, everybody, always, anything, everything, whoever,
wherever, whatever, etc.

e.g. Everybody eats vegetable. All persons are vegetarians.

Whoever is Christian will sympathize. All Christian are sympathizers. .

A prayerful student is always successful. All prayerful students are successful individuals.

No should be used in place of no one, nobody, never, nothing, none, etc.

Ex: Nobody plays. No persons are players.

Nothing is permanent. No things are permanent things.

My students never come late. No students of mine are latecomers.

Some should be used in place of many, several, a few, certain, most, twenty-four, 90%,
majority, minority, etc.

Ex: A few professors are Logic specialists. Some professors are Logic specialists.

24 firemen are brave. Some firemen are brave people.

Minority of the directors likes Bong Bread. Some directors are persons who like Bong
Bread.

4. Exclusive statements should be translated into universal statements by dropping the word-
indicators of exclusivity ('None but, 'Only, and 'None except) and reversing the order of the
original statement.

e.g. None but women are deaconesses. All deaconesses are women.

Only toddlers are preschoolers. All preschoolers are toddlers.

None except declarative sentences are statements. All statements are declarative
sentences.

5. Exceptive statements, that is, those that begin with All except and all but, may be translated
into E or an A proposition. In most cases however, E proposition is preferred.

Ex: All except Nazis are freedom-lovers. (E) No Nazis are freedom-lovers./ (A) All who are not
Nazis are freedom-lovers

All but Marxists are capitalists. (E) No Marxists are capitalists. / (A) All who are not Marxists
are capitalists.

6. Statements that begin with Not all should be translated as an O statement.

e.g. Not all professors are Philosophy majors. Some professors are not Philosophy majors.

7. ...Cannot be both.. statements must be reduced into an E proposition.

Ex: One cannot be both a Darwinist and a theist. No Darwinists are theists.

8. Basic conditional (If ..then) statements must be reduced into universal propositions.

a) If A is B, then A is C All B are C.

e.g. If it is a toad, then it is an amphibian. All toads are amphibians.

b) If A is B, then A is not C. No B are C.

e.g. If it is a whale, then it is not a reptile. No whales are reptiles.

There are kinds of sentences which are better left unchanged. For instance, to reduce singular
statements like Andrew is a priest as All persons who are like Andrew are priests (as some
authors suggest) is to have a problematic translation. Same is the case with statements that begin
with article a or an like A dog is sleeping under the table.
 In using these sentences in logical processes, some guidelines have to be considered
nonetheless. Sentences that begin with the article a or an are usually construed as universal,
unless the context ascertains particularity. Thus, A horse is a mammal is considered as a
universal proposition (A) while A horse is sick is treated as particular (I).
Singular statements should also be treated as universal statements. Thus, Sigmund Freud is
a neurologist is considered as an A proposition while Carl Jung is not a mathematician, an E
statement.

Note: For logical reasons, discussion on Square of Opposition is deliberately placed under
Inference and Reasoning. Furthermore, Distribution of Terms is discussed under the topic
Categorical Syllogism because knowledge about it is essentially needed in determining the validity
of syllogistic arguments.

Lecture 7

Categorical Propositions

and

Immediate Inferences

Categorical Propositions: Any proposition which relates two

or more classes of objects

All categorical propositions are divided into two distinct logical parts which are associated
with the terms which make up the object classes being compared

I. Parts of Categorical Propositions:

 A. Subject Term - first category or class

B. Predicate Term - second category or class

Examples:

Cats are members of the mammal family.

Subject Term Predicate Term

Asteroids are astronomical objects.

Subject Term Predicate Term

C. Copula - that which links the terms of a C.

 Proposition together

Examples:

Cats are members of the mammal class.

Copula

Asteroids are astronomical objects.

Copula

D. Quantifies - the words which specify the quantity of the

subject class which is related to the predicate class

1. Universal:
 a) 'All' - inclusive of a whole class

b) 'No' - exclusive of a whole class

2. Particular: 'Some' - inclusive of part of a class

Note: We should keep in mind that the quantifiers ('all', 'no',

and 'some') are implied in all categorical propositions even
though they are not explicitly stated. If these quantifiers are
not explicitly used in the formulation of the proposition it is
said to be in non-standard form. The standard form for all
categorical propositions is the following:

All S are P.
 No S are P.

Some S are P.

Some S are not P.

If our examples above were in standard form they would look

like this:

All cats are members of the mammal family.

All asteroids are astronomical objects.

E. Quality - the kind of affirmation made by the

proposition

1. Affirmative - asserts a quality to a class

 2. Negative - denies a quality to a class

When we put the quality and quantity of categorical

proposition together we see that there are four and only four
possible arrangements:

Universal Affirmative Particular

Affirmative

Universal Negative Particular

Negative

Thus, there are only four types of standard form categorical

proposition possible. As a shortcut we may tag each with a
letter as follows:
 A Universal Affirmative All S are P.

E Universal Negative No S are P.

I Particular Affirmative Some S are P.

O Particular Negative Some S are not P.

F. Distribution - the quantity associated with either the

subject or predicate term of a categorical proposition

Definition: a term is 'distributed' if the proposition makes an

assertion about every member of the class denoted by the
term.

1. Universal Affirmative - All S are P.

 2. Universal Negative - No S are P.

Note: in light of this distribution we might be tempted to

formulate the E proposition as "All S are not P." But this
formulation is ambiguous since it could mean one of two
different things: suppose we said "All pit bulls are not mean."
This could be interpreted as

1. No pit bulls are mean, or

2. Some pit bulls are not mean

Without a specific context it is impossible to determine which

is the intended meaning. Thus, even though both terms are
distributed in the E claim, we always use the standard form
"No s are P."

3. Particular Affirmative - Some S are P.

4. Particular Negative - Some S are not P.

II. Categorical Propositions and Immediate Inferences:

Aristotle first divided the proposition horizontally by quantity
and vertically by quality.

From this arrangement Aristotle derived four logical relations

1. From A to E and E to A

2. From I to O and O to I

3. From A to O and O to A, and from E to I and I to E

4. From A to I and I to A, and E to O and O to E

A. Aristotle's Square of Opposition and Immediate

Inference
 1. Contrary - at least one claim is false (they cannot both
be true)

2. Subcontrary - at least one is true (they cannot both be

false)

3. Contradiction they have opposite truth values

4. Subalternation - truth of the universal implies the

truth of the particular, and falsity of the particular
implies the falsity of the universal.

B. Modern Square of Opposition and Immediate Inference

 1. Universal propositions (Boolean)

All S are P. = No members of S are outside P.

No S are P. = No members of S are inside P.

2. Particular propositions (Boolean)

Some S are P. = Some S exists, and it is a P.

Some S are not P. = Some S exists and it is not a P.

The Boolean interpretation of the Categorical Propositions

leaves only one possible relationship for immediate inference:
Contradiction.

3. Existential Fallacy - occurs when the traditional square is

used in conjunction with non-existent entities.

III. Categorical Propositions and Venn Diagrams:

The most useful device for understanding the nature of

modern Categorical Propositions is the circle diagram of John
Venn. A Venn diagram is a model for some universe of
discourse.

Note that there are four regions in the diagram each

corresponding to some element of a categorical proposition:
 1. The region of S and only S (not P).

2. The region of S and P (both S and P).

3. The region of P and only P (not S).

4. The region of not S, and not P, and not S and P (i.e., what
lies beyond both S and P (not S and not P).

UA/A All S is P. (None of S is outside of P.)

UN/E No S is P. (None of S is inside of P.)

PA/I Some S is P. (At least one S is inside of P.)

PN/O Some S is not P. (At least one S is not inside of P.)

IV. Translating Ordinary Sentences to Categorical
Propositions:

A. The main rule to observe is that all standard form CPs

must have a subject term, predicate term, quantifier, and
copula in the following form:

Quantifier - Subject Term - Copula - Predicate Term

In the case of ambiguous sentences, isolate what you think is the primary meaning, then follow
the guidelines below:

1. Where there is a Term without a noun: supply the

missing noun
2. Nonstandard Verbs: always replace with 'are' and
'are not'

3. Singular Propositions: translate as 'all' with a parameter

4. Adverbs and Pronouns: translate as follows -

a) spatial adverbs - 'places'

b) temporal adverbs - 'times'

c) pronouns - 'persons' or 'things'

5. Unexpressed Quantifiers: choose the probable

quantity

6. Nonstandard Quantifiers: translate as follows -

 a) few - 'some'

b) any or anyone - 'all'

c) not every or not all - 'some ______ are not'

Note: a statement beginning with 'few' must be translated as

a compound I/O proposition.

7. Conditionals: translate as follows -

a) if . . . then - 'all' or 'no'

b) where 'if' occurs in the middle - move 'if predicate'

 to beginning and translate 'all' or 'no'

c) transposition - negate both antecedent and

consequent and switch their order, then translate
'all' or 'no'

8. Exclusive Propositions: conditionalize then categorize

Note: 'only' and 'none but' at the beginning require term

reversal

9. 'The only' - translate as 'all'

10. Exceptive Propositions - must be translated as a

compound E/A proposition