I just began reading Aristotle's Categories, and stumbled on the second sentence: a man and a picture are not animals; while a man is an animal, a picture is not, even a picture of a man. In one commentary, this was explained away as the picture in question being of a man, and made it seem as if a child were being asked by a teacher to point to an animal in the room (e.g. the teacher), and then to an animal in a picture book. However, if this is implied, I don't see how, as the commentator seems to be reading into the text an interpretation, rather than drawing it out from textual evidence. To my eye, the sentence itself just looks strange; I can't see deeper into it, as I don't see why Aristotle would choose such a strange example (why not just use the example of two people with the same name, or homonymous words like 'felt'?). When my little sister used to ask me what something meant, I would come up with some reasonable-sounding bullshit; I'd rather not be taken in the same way. What is a good exegetical paraphrase of this sentence?
Based on the text of the definition of ‘homonym’, and contrasting it to the definition of ‘synonym’, my sense is that the homonymous term in question is ‘animal’. The paraphrase would then be: “A man and a picture [of some animal] are both animals; but because the man is a species of the genus ‘living animal’, while the picture is a species of the genus ‘pictured animal’, they are merely homonymous, as the abbreviated term ‘animal’ refers to two different kinds of groups". I am not happy with this, as I have to read into the text the bracketed adjective. Also, I am coming at this post-Frege, with a Platonic distinction between sense and reference, and I suspect - if can't speak to - some anachronism in my interpretation.