Changes

|}

|}

The Figure depicts a situation where each of the three objects, <math>x_1, x_2, x_3,\!</math> has a proper name that denotes it alone, namely, the three proper names <math>y_1, y_2, y_3,\!</math> respectively.  Over and above the objects denoted by their proper names, there is the general sign <math>y,\!</math> which denotes any and all of the objects <math>x_1, x_2, x_3.\!</math>  This kind of sign is described as a ''general name'' or a ''plural term'', and its relation to its objects is a ''general reference'' or a ''plural denotation''.

The Figure depicts a situation where each of the three objects, <math>x_1, x_2, x_3,\!</math> has a ''proper name'' that denotes it alone, namely, the three proper names <math>y_1, y_2, y_3,\!</math> respectively.  Over and above the objects denoted by their proper names, there is the general sign <math>y,\!</math> which denotes any and all of the objects <math>x_1, x_2, x_3.\!</math>  This kind of sign is described as a ''general name'' or a ''plural term'', and its relation to its objects is a ''general reference'' or a ''plural denotation''.

 

Now, at this stage of the game, if you ask:  ''Is the object of the sign <math>y\!</math> one or many?'', the answer has to be:  ''Not one, but many''.  That is, there is not one <math>x\!</math> that <math>y\!</math> denotes, but only the three <math>x\!</math>'s in the object space.  Nominal thinkers would ask:  ''Granted this, what need do we have really of more excess?''  The maxim of the nominal thinker is ''never read a general name as a name of a general'', meaning that we should never jump from the accidental circumstance of a plural sign <math>y\!</math> to the abnominal fact that a unit <math>x\!</math> exists.

<pre>

<pre>

In actual practice this would be just one segment of a much larger

In actual practice this would be just one segment of a much larger

sign relation, but let us continue to focus on just this one piece.

sign relation, but let us continue to focus on just this one piece.