| | |
| Paragraph 1 |
But if one term belongs to all, and another to none, of a third,
or if both belong to all, or to none, of it, I call such a figure
the third; |
| Paragraph 2 |
If they are universal, whenever both P and R belong to S,
it follows
that P will necessarily belong to some R. |
| Paragraph 3 |
If R belongs to all S, and P to no S, there will be a syllogism to
prove that P will necessarily not belong to some R. |
| Paragraph 4 |
Nor can there be a syllogism when both terms are asserted of no S. |
| Paragraph 5 |
It is clear then in this figure also when a syllogism will be
possible and when not, if the terms are related universally. |
| Paragraph 6 |
Again if R belongs to some S, and P to all S, P must belong to
some R. |
| Paragraph 7 |
But whenever the major is affirmative, no syllogism will be
possible, e.g. if P belongs to all S and R does not belong to some
S. |
| Paragraph 8 |
But if the negative term is universal, whenever the major is
negative and the minor affirmative there will be a
syllogism. |
| Paragraph 9 |
But when the minor is negative, there will be no syllogism. |
| Paragraph 10 |
Nor is a syllogism possible when both are stated in the negative,
but one is universal, the other particular. |
| Paragraph 11 |
Nor is a syllogism possible anyhow, if each of the extremes
belongs to some of the middle or does not belong, or one belongs and
the other does not to some of the middle, or one belongs to some of
the middle, the other not to all, or if the premisses are
indefinite. |
| Paragraph 12 |
It is clear then in this figure also when a syllogism will be
possible, and when not; |
HTML by 
created 1996/11/25 modified 2009/04/26