Full Idea
Locke sometimes confuses the nominal essence (a set of properties) with the abstract idea that is the meaning of the general term.
Gist of Idea
In nominal essence, Locke confuses the set of properties with the abstracted idea of them
Source
comment on John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 3.03.13) by Antony Eagle - Locke on Essences and Kinds IV
A Reaction
I'm a bit surprised by this view. I took Locke to be referring entirely to the abstracted ideas that give the meaning of the term. I don't take him to be referring to any set of real properties (e.g. 'secondary' ones) intrinsic to the object.
Related Idea
Idea 15645 Nominal essence are the observable properties of things [Eagle]