conjectural or unknown.

The fifth point concerns his statement that it depends on ruling out figurative usage, homonymy, ellipsis and specification; he may also add semantic transfer. The reply is that this needlessly multiplies the premises. It is like saying that it depends on ruling out figurative addition, omission and metaphor: this multiplication serves no purpose. Rather, it is enough to say that it depends on ruling out any other possible meaning of the expression, whether through figurative usage, homonymy or ellipsis. Specification is itself a kind of figurative usage.

An expression either signifies two meanings equally, in which case it is homonymous, or it signifies one meaning on its own and another when accompanied by a contextual indicator, in which case the latter usage is figurative. This is according to those who hold that figurative usage exists in language.

As for someone who denies this and says that there is only unqualified signification or signification qualified by a contextual indicator, the unqualified is qualified by its lack of qualification, while the qualified is qualified by a verbal qualifier. Thus, one may say that imperative, prohibitive and general forms, when unaccompanied by contextual indicators, signify commands, prohibitions and comprehensive inclusion, whereas with a contextual indicator they signify specification or a threat; and, through their being free of a specifying contextual indicator, to an indicator clarifying the intended meaning.

If, then, it is said, “A figurative expression is one that signifies with a contextual indicator