And therefore, to follow the words of Aristotle more closely, one should con sider that he said that the verb does not signify a thing to be or not to be, ever being [ens] does not signify a thing to be or not to be. And thus he says, "It is nothing" [nihil est]—i.e. does not signify anything to be.

For this was most clear with the expression being: since being is nothing othei than what is [quod est]. And thus it appears both to signify a thing, by the ex pression QU0D, and existence by the expression EST. And indeed if this expres sion being should signify existence principally, as it signifies a thing which has being, without doubt it would signify that something exists.

But it does not principally signify that composition which is implied in th expression EST, but it "consignifies" it insofar as it signifies a thing having being.

Whence such a "consignification" [or implied signification] does not suflia for truth or falsehood—since the composition in which truth and falsehooc consist cannot be understood except insofar as it connects the extremes of tht composition.46

"For in order to prove that verbs do not signify a thing to be or not to be, he [Aristotle] takes that which is the fount and source of existence, namely, being itself—concerning which he says that it is nothing. . . ."~ St. Thomas, before giving his own explanation of this, examines the readings of other commentators. Alexander takes the statement that "being is nothing" (ens nihil est) to refer to the equivocal signification of being. An equivocal noun, taken by itself, signifies nothing. St. Thomas disagrees. Not only does being not signify nothing, it signifies many (multa), but according to prior and posterior in meanings (secundum prius et posterius)—"whence it is understood absolutely speaking of that which is said in the prior way."45 Moreover, Alexander s approach has little to do with Aristotle s point. Porphyry says that "being does not signify the nature of anything, as does the word 'man or 'wise, but solely designates a certain conjoining." If this were the case, St. Thomas observes, being would be neither noun nor verb, but would be like the conjunction and preposition.