§1.1.20Ἐν δὲ τῷ τελευταίῳ σχήματι καὶ ἀμφοτέρων ἐνδεχομένων καὶ τῆς ἑτέρας ἔσται συλλογισμός.
In the last figure, there will be a syllogism both when both premises are possible and when only one is.
ὅταν μὲν οὖν ἐνδέχεσθαι σημαίνωσιν αἱ προτάσεις, καὶ τὸ συμπέρασμα ἔσται ἐνδεχόμενον· καὶ ὅταν ἡ μὲν ἐνδέχεσθαι ἡ δʼ ὑπάρχειν.
When, then, the premises signify being possible, the conclusion will also be possible; and also when one signifies being possible and the other belonging.
ὅταν δʼ ἡ ἑτέρα τεθῇ ἀναγκαία, ἐὰν μὲν ᾖ καταφατική, οὐκ ἔσται τὸ συμπέρασμα οὔτε ἀναγκαῖον οὔθʼ ὑπάρχον, ἐὰν δʼ ᾖ στερητική, τοῦ μὴ ὑπάρχειν ἔσται συλλογισμός, καθάπερ καὶ ἐν τοῖς πρότερον· ληπτέον δὲ καὶ ἐν τούτοις ὁμοίως τὸ ἐν τοῖς συμτπεράσμασιν ἐνδεχόμενον.
But when one is assumed as necessary, if it is affirmative, the conclusion will be neither necessary nor belonging, but if it is privative, there will be a syllogism of not belonging, just as in the previous cases; and in these cases we must likewise take "possible" in the conclusions in the same way.
Ἔστωσαν δὴ πρῶτον ἐνδεχόμεναι, καὶ τὸ Α καὶ τὸ Β παντὶ τῷ Γ ἐνδεχέσθω ὑπάρχειν.
Let them first be possible, and let both A and B be possible to belong to all Γ.
ἐπεὶ οὖν ἀντιστρέφει τὸ καταφατικὸν ἐπὶ μέρους, τὸ δὲ Β παντὶ τῷ Γ ἐνδέχεται, καὶ τὸ Γ τινὶ τῷ β ἐνδέχοιτʼ ἄν.
Since, then, the affirmative converts in part, and B is possible to belong to all Γ, Γ also would be possible to belong to some B.
ὥστʼ εἰ τὸ μὲν· παντὶ τῷ Γ ἐνδέχεται, τὸ δὲ Γ τινὶ τῷ Β, ἀνάγκη καὶ τὸ Α τινὶ τῷ Β ἐνδέχεσθαι· γίγνεται γὰρ τὸ πρῶτον σχῆμα.
So that, if A is possible to belong to all Γ, and Γ to some B, it is necessary that A also is possible to belong to some B; for the first figure comes about.
καὶ εἰ τὸ μὲν Α ἐνδέχεται μηδενὶ τῷ Γ ὑπάρχειν, τὸ δὲ Β παντὶ τῷ Γ, ἀνάγκη τὸ Α τινὶ τῷ Β ἐνδέχεσθαι μὴ ὑπάρχειν· ἔσται γὰρ πάλιν τὸ πρῶτον σχῆμα διὰ τῆς ἀντιστροφῆς.
And if A is possible to belong to no Γ, and B to all Γ, it is necessary that A is possible not to belong to some B; for again the first figure will come about through conversion.
εἰ δʼ ἀμφότεραι στερητικαὶ τεθείησαν, ἐξ αὐτῶν μὲν τῶν εἰλημμένων οὐκ ἔσται τὸ ἀναγκαῖον, ἀντιστραφεισῶν δὲ τῶν προτάσεων ἔσται συλλογισμός, καθάπερ ἐν τοῖς πρότερον.
But if both should be assumed as privative, from the assumed premises themselves there will be no necessary consequence, but when the premises are converted, there will be a syllogism, just as in the previous cases.
εἰ γἄρ τὸ Α καὶ τὸ Β τῷ Γ ἐνδέχεται μὴ ὑπάρχειν, ἐὰν μεταληφθῇ τὸ ἐνδέχεσθαι ὑπάρχειν, πάλιν ἔσται τὸ πρῶτον σχῆμα διὰ τῆς ἀντιστροφῆς.
For if A and B are possible not to belong to Γ, if they are changed to being possible to belong, again the first figure will come about through conversion.
εἰ δʼ ὁ μέν ἐστι καθόλου τῶν ὅρων ὁ δʼ ἐν μέρει, τὸν αὐτόν τρόπον ἐχόντων τῶν ὅρων ὅνπερ ἐπὶ τοῦ ὑπάρχειν, ἔσται τε καὶ οὐκ ἔσται συλλογισμός.
But if one of the terms is universal and the other particular, with the terms being related in the same way as in belonging, a syllogism will both come about and not.
ἐνδεχέσθω γὰρ τὸ μὲν Α παντὶ τῷ Γ, τὸ δὲ Β τινὶ τῷ Γ ὑπάρχειν.
For let A be possible to belong to all Γ, and B to some Γ.
ἔσται δὴ πάλιν τὸ πρῶτον σχῆμα τῆς ἐν μέρει προτάσεως ἀντιστραφείσης· εἰ γὰρ τὸ Α παντὶ τῷ Γ, τὸ δὲ Γ τινὶ τῷ Β, τὸ Α τινὶ· τῷ Β ἐνδέχεται.
Then again the first figure will come about when the particular premise is converted; for if A belongs to all Γ, and Γ to some B, A is possible to belong to some B.
καὶ εἰ πρὸς τῷ Β Γ τεθείη τὸ καθόλου, ὡσαύτως.
And if the universal is assumed in relation to B [and Γ], likewise.
ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ εἰ τὸ μὲν Γ στερητικόν εἴη, τὸ δὲ Β Γ καταφατικόν· ἔσται γὰρ πάλιν τὸ πρῶτον σχῆμα διὰ τῆς ἀντιστροφῆς.
And similarly also if [the premise with] A is privative, and that with B [and Γ] is affirmative; for again the first figure will come about through conversion.
εἰ δʼ ἀμφότεραι στερητικαὶ τεθείησαν, ἡ μὲν καθόλου ἡ δʼ ἐν μέρει, διʼ αὐτῶν μὲν τῶν εἰλημμένων οὐκ ἔσται συλλογισμός, ἀντιστραφεισῶν δʼ ἔσται, κα· θάπερ ἐν τοῖς πρότερον.
But if both should be assumed as privative, the one universal and the other particular, from the assumed premises themselves there will be no syllogism, but when they are converted there will be, just as in the previous cases.
ὅταν δὲ ἀμφότεραι ἀδιόριστοι ἢ ἐν μέρει ληφθῶσιν, οὐκ ἔσται συλλογισμός· καὶ γὰρ παντὶἀνάγκη τὸ τῷ Β καὶ μηδενὶ ὑπάρχειν.
But when both are taken as indefinite or as particular, there will be no syllogism; for it is necessary for A to belong both to all and to no B.
ὅροι τοῦ ὑπάρχειν ζῷον—ἄνθρωπος—λευκόν, τοῦ μὴ ὑπάρχειν ἵππος—ἄν—θρωπος—λευκκόν, μέσον λευκόν.
Terms for belonging: animal—human—white; for not belonging: horse—human—white; middle term: white.