ad ADVPOS h PRON31NOMSF si CONJ ratio N31NOMSF contra ADVPOS respond V21PRESACTIVESUB3S s PRON54ABLXC quidem ADVPOS et CONJ qu PRON10NOMSN sensibil ADJ32NOMSNPOS et CONJ qu PRON10NOMSN imaginable OTHER s V51PRESACTIVESUB3S in PREPABL universitat N31GENSF ration N31LOCSF conspic V11PRESSUB2S ill PRON61NOMSF ver N21DATSM ad ADVPOS universitat N31GENSF cognition N31ACCSF adspir V11PRESACTIVEINF0X non ADV poss V52PRESACTIVEINF0X quoniam CONJ e PRON41GENPM notio N31NOMSF corporal ADJ32NOMPCPOS figur N11ACCPF non ADV poss V52PRESACTIVESUB3S exced V31PRESACTIVEINF0X de PREPABL r N51GENPF ver N21DATSM cognitio N31NOMSF n V21PRESACTIVEIMP2S firmi ADJ11DATSXCOMP poti ADJ00NOMSNCOMP perfecti ADJ00DATSXCOMP que CONJ iudici N24DATSN ess VPAR31VOCSMPERFPASSIVEPPL cred VPAR31NOMSNFUTPASSIVEPPL in PREPABL hu PRON31GENSX igitur CONJ lit VPAR31VOCSMPERFPASSIVEPPL n PRON53NOMPC qu PRON10DATPX tam ADVPOS ratiocin VPAR11GENSMFUTPPL qu PRON10ACCSF imagin VPAR11GENSMFUTPPL etiam CONJ senti VPAR34GENSMFUTPASSIVEPPL que CONJ vis V62PRESACTIVEIND2S in V51PRESACTIVEIND3S nonne ADVPOS ration N31GENSF poti ADJ00NOMSNCOMP caus N11ACCSF prob V11IMPFACTIVESUB1P
Further, if reason rejoins to this that she does indeed see both the object of sense and the object of imagination under the aspect of their universality, but that they cannot aspire to the knowledge of universality since their knowledge cannot go beyond corporeal shapes, but we must give credence rather to the more firm and perfect judgement concerning the knowledge of things: in this sort of argument, then, should we not, we who have in us the power of reasoning as well as those of imagination and sense, should we not rather judge in favour of reasons case?
final_alignments\Boethius_Philosophy_Book5.json