their claim, their opponents refuted everything they had cited. Among their best-known examples is the saying of the Most High:

“a wall that wanted to collapse.”

They argued: “A wall is not a living creature, and only living creatures have a will. Thus, using this expression for the wall’s inclination is figurative.”

They were answered as follows: The term “will” has been used both for an inclination accompanied by awareness—the inclination of a living being—and for an inclination without awareness—that of an inanimate object. This is well-established usage in the language. People say, “This roof wants to fall,” “This land wants ploughing,” “These crops want watering,” “This fruit wants picking,” “This garment wants washing,” and similar expressions.

When an expression is used in two or more senses, it may be regarded as literal in one and figurative in another; or as literal in the meaning peculiar to each, making it a homonymous expression; or as literal in the meaning common to both. Terms of the last kind are univocal, and all general terms belong to this category. The first approach entails figurative usage, and the second entails homonymy. Both are contrary to the default assumption, so the expression must be treated as univocal.

This is how the general scope of all general terms is established. Otherwise, were someone to say, “It is literal when applied to the inclination of an inanimate object and figurative when applied to that of a living creature,” there would be no difference between the two claims except that it is used more frequently for the inclination of a living creature. In that usage, however, it is qualified by what makes clear that a living creature’s inclination is intended; here, it is qualified by what makes clear that an inanimate object’s inclination is intended.

The meaning shared by the things denoted by univocal terms is something universal and general, which exists as universal and general only in the mind. It is what is divided into species. Yet that general meaning