Common supposition is divided into 'determinate supposition', in which one refers to everything falling under the term's signification disjunctively, as in 'some man runs' = 'this man or that man or the other man... runs', and 'confused supposition', in which the term refers to everything falling under its signification, but not disjunctively.
At the very beginning of the chapter on supposition, like Walter Burley, Wyclif divides supposition into improper, in which a term stands for something different from its primary significatum by special custom (ex usu loquendi), and proper, in which a term stands for something by the virtue of the expression itself.
The most interesting syncategorematic words for Heytesbury are generally those which produce confused supposition in the terms which follow them.
Once the possibility is admitted that a copyist used more than one exemplar or (the more probable supposition) copied an exemplar in which variants from another source or sources had been incorporated i.e., that more than one textual state may coexist in a single witness the construction of a stemma becomes more complicated and may be impossible.
Notice that Ramsey considered supposition in the two cases in which it seems to have epistemological significance, namely when the agent who evaluates a conditional is in suspense with respect to the antecedent of the conditional, and when the agent is in a counter-doxastic position, i.e. when he believes the negation of the antecedent.
In our example, the counterfactual supposition p considers a world in which we were not interested in counter-factuals.
homo potest esse Antichristus ('A man can be the Antichrist'), and homo necessario est animal ('A man is necessarily an animal')—in which case the supposition of the term 'man' is extended to more than just individuals existing in the present.
This also supports the supposition that the tetrachromatic condition (lineages in which we were able to identify the RH2, sw1, sw2 and lw visual conopsins) was the ancestral condition of modern birds.
Thus, D's laws are stable under some counterfactual supposition for which fundamental physics is unstable.
If the following supposition were true there were the same number of RCTs in which both new and old intervention increased mortality then that supposition would indicate that the vast majority of RCTs were unable to show anything other than equivalence, or non-inferiority.
This supposition is supported by our recent work in which combined treatment with DAC and sodium phenylbutyrate reduced the number of developing lung tumours in a murine model by >50% (Belinsky et al, 2003).
