Syncategorematic

Syncategorematic (pronounced sin-kat-i-gawr-uh-mat-ik or sin-kat-i-gor-uh-mat-ik)

(1) In traditional logic, of or relating to a word that is part of a categorical proposition but is not a term, as all, some, is (applying to expressions not in any of Aristotle's categories, but form meaningful expressions together with them, such as conjunctions and adverbs).

(2) In contemporary logic, of or relating to a word or symbol that has no independent meaning and acquires meaning only in the context of other words or symbols, as the symbol (or the word of).

1820–1830: From the Late Latin syncatēgorēmat-, stem of syncatēgorēma (part of a discourse that needs another word to become fully intelligible).  The construct was syn- +‎ categorematic.  The syn- prefix (used also as syl- (if preceding a “l” and sym- (if preceding a “b”, “m” or “p”) was from the Ancient Greek συν- (sun-), from σύν (sún) (with, in company with, together with) and may be compare with the Sanskrit सम्- (sam-).  It was appended to create forms with the meanings (1) identical, (2) with, together, or (3) concomitant.  Categorematic was from the Ancient Greek κατηγορῆμα (katēgorēma) (predicate; or something that is affirmed) from the verb κατηγορέω (katēgoreō) (to accuse, assert, or predicate).  The Latinized version of this root (categorema) was adopted by English and was the source of the familiar word “category” (and derivatives).  With the mix of Greek and Latin influences, syncategorematic is one of those words the more fastidious purists dislike.

The suffix -ate was a word-forming element used in forming nouns from Latin words ending in -ātus, -āta, & -ātum (such as estate, primate & senate).  Those that came to English via French often began with -at, but an -e was added in the fifteenth century or later to indicate the long vowel.  It can also mark adjectives formed from Latin perfect passive participle suffixes of first conjugation verbs -ātus, -āta, & -ātum (such as desolate, moderate & separate).  Again, often they were adopted in Middle English with an –at suffix, the -e appended after circa 1400; a doublet of –ee.  The construct of the –atic suffix was –at(e) +‎ -ic; it was a doublet of –age and an alternative form of –tic.  The -ic suffix was from the Middle English -ik, from the Old French -ique, from the Latin -icus, from the primitive Indo-European -kos & -ḱos, formed with the i-stem suffix -i- and the adjectival suffix -kos & -ḱos.  The form existed also in the Ancient Greek as -ικός (-ikós), in Sanskrit as -इक (-ika) and the Old Church Slavonic as -ъкъ (-ŭkŭ); A doublet of -y.  In European languages, adding -kos to noun stems carried the meaning "characteristic of, like, typical, pertaining to" while on adjectival stems it acted emphatically; in English it's always been used to form adjectives from nouns with the meaning “of or pertaining to”.  A precise technical use exists in physical chemistry where it's used to denote certain chemical compounds in which a specified chemical element has a higher oxidation number than in the equivalent compound whose name ends in the suffix -ous; (eg sulphuric acid (H₂SO₄) has more oxygen atoms per molecule than sulphurous acid (H₂SO₃).  Used in linguistics (of a term), syncategorematic describes those terms which demand the appending of other terms to make a meaningful constituent of language; in th more arcane corners of the field, there are terms said to be (the comparative) “more syncategorematic” and (the superlative) most syncategorematic.  Syncategorematic & syncategorematical are adjectives, syncategoreme & syncategorematicity are nouns and syncategorematically is an adverb; the noun plural is syncategoremes or syncategorematicities (the latter apparently not in use).

Sentence: “The girl’s legs were under the table.”  The preposition “under” is syncategorematic because it describes the spatial relationship between her “legs” and the “table” but in isolation, “under” has no meaning.

It’s a long word and the definition might seem convoluted but in English syncategorematic words are in common, everyday use.  In traditional logic, it denotes a word unable to sustain useful meaning if standing alone but must be joined to a categorematic term in order to enter a categorical proposition; “some”, “and” & “all” are among those used most frequently.  In modern logic, the sense was extended to any symbol with no independent meaning.  Some terms which seem grammatically categorematic are often classed as syncategorematic, especially those which are in some way “value loaded” attributive adjectives (such as “good” or “large”).  Neither “good, nor “large” possess independent meaning whereas “red” and “is a Ferrari” are so vested; something can simply be “red” but it there is nothing which can be understood from “large” as a stand-alone term.  Meaning is attained only when something is added because the meaning comes from the sense of being relative-to-something (a “large bacterium” may be big enough to be the biggest bacterium ever seen but, comparatively, it’s nothing close to the size of a “large elephant”.

Sentence: “A girl is sitting on the floor.”  Both “a” and “the” are syncategorematic; they modify the nouns “girl” and “map” but do not, when standing alone, impart meaning.

The common examples of syncategorematic terms in English can be classified into a number of categories: (1) Logical Operators: (and, or, not, if, then) which structure logical relationships between propositions; (2) Articles: (the, a, an) which specify definiteness or indefiniteness but lack standalone meaning; (3) Prepositions: (in, on, at, by, with) which indicate relationships between nouns or pronouns but do not on their own impart meaning; (4) Conjunctions: (and, but, or, because) which connect clauses or ideas; (5) Quantifiers: (all, some, none, many, few) which express quantity or extent without referring to a specific entity; (6) Negations: (not, no) which modify the meaning of other terms or clauses and (7) Adverbs of Degree: (very, quite, somewhat, too) which modify adjectives or adverbs to indicate intensity or degree.

There are nuances in use such as the legendary exchange which gave language the word “laconic” (using few words; expressing much in few words).  In Antiquity, Laconia was the region inhabited and ruled by the Spartans, known for their brevity in speech and in English, the meaning “concise, abrupt” emerged in the 1580s (although laconical was created and went extinct a decade earlier).  The origin of this sense was when Philip II of Macedon (382–336 BC; king (basileus) of Macedonia 359-336) threatened the Spartans with the words: "If I enter Laconia, I will raze Sparta to the ground." to which the Spartans replied: "If.”  In that case, the meaning is derived from the context, a case in which “if” (usually syncategorematic) has meaning as a superficially single, stand-alone word.