The phrase "are predicable of" is correct and usable in written English.
It is typically used in philosophical or logical contexts to indicate that certain properties or attributes can be ascribed to a subject.
Example: "In this discussion, we will explore which characteristics are predicable of a good leader."
Alternatives: "can be attributed to" or "are applicable to".
Of things themselves some are predicable of a subject, and are never present in a subject.
Thus, both the name and the definition of the species are predicable of the individual.
The nature of particulars and properties determines whether the second are predicable of the first or not.
But does this mean that, unlike Aristotelian proper substances, which are not predicable of anything else, Spinoza's finite modes are predicable of substance?
Socrates is a subjective part of Human Being and a subjective part of Animal, and Human Being and Animal are predicable of Socrates.
One involves trans-categorial terms, such as 'being,'onene,'trueue,' and 'good,' which apply to all categories and are predicable of every term that falls within the categories.
When one thing is predicated of another, all that which is predicable of the predicate will be predicable also of the subject.
It is plain from what has been said that both the name and the definition of the predicate must be predicable of the subject.
Thus, 'man' is predicated of the individual man; but 'animal' is predicated of 'man'; it will, therefore, be predicable of the individual man also: for the individual man is both 'man' and 'animal'animal
For it is absurd if of each subject its own negation is to be predicable, while the negation of something else which cannot be predicated of it is not to be predicable of it; for instance, if it is true to say of a man that he is not a man, evidently it is also true to say that he is either a trireme or not a trireme.
Thus 'man' is predicable of the individual man, and is never present in a subject.
