§1.2.6Ἐν δὲ τῷ δευτέρῳ σχήματι τὸ μὲν καταφατικὸν οὐκ ἔστι δεῖξαι διὰ τούτου τοῦ τρόπου, τὸ δὲ στερητικὸν ἔστιν.
In the second figure, it is not possible to prove the affirmative premise in this way, but it is possible to prove the negative one.
τὸ μὲν οὖν κατηγορικόν οὐ δείκνυται διὰ τὸ μὴ ἀμφοτέρας εἶναι τὰς προτάσεις καταφατικάς· τό γὰρ συμπέρασμα στερητικόν ἐστι, τὸ δὲ κατηγορικὸν ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων ἐδείκνυτο καταφατικῶν.
The affirmative premise is not proved because both premises do not become affirmative; for the conclusion is negative, and the affirmative premise was proved from both being affirmative.
τὸ δὲ στερητικὸν ὧδε δείκνυται.
But the negative premise is proved as follows.
ὑπαρχέτω τὸ Α παντὶ τῷ Β, τῷ δὲ Γ μηδενί· συμπέρασμα τὸ Β οὐδενὶ τῷ Γ. ἐὰν οὖν ληφθῇ τὸ Β παντὶ τῷ Α ὑπάρχον, ἀνάγκη τὸ Α μηδενὶ τῷ Γ ὑπάρχειν· γίνεται γὰρ τὸ δεύτερον σχῆμα·
Let A belong to every B, and to no C; the conclusion is that B belongs to no C. If, then, B is assumed to belong to every A, it is necessary for A to belong to no C; for the second figure is produced, and B is the middle term.
μέσον τὸ Β. εἰ δὲ τὸ Β στερητικὸν ἐλήφθη, θάτερον δὲ κατηγορικόν, τὸ πρῶτον ἔσται σχῆμα.
But if B was assumed as negative, and the other as affirmative, the first figure will be produced.
τὸ μὲν γὰρ Γ παντὶ τῷ Α, τὸ δὲ Β οὐδενὶ τῷ Γ, ὥστʼ οὐδενὶ τῷ τὸ Β· οὐδʼ ἄρα τὸ Α τῷ Β. διὰ μὲν οὖν τοῦ συμπεράσματος καὶ τῆς μιᾶς προτάσεως οὐ γίνεται συλλογισμός, προσληφθείσης δʼ ἑτέρας ἔσται.
For C belongs to every A, and B to no C, so that B belongs to no A; therefore neither does A belong to B. Therefore, a syllogism is not produced through the conclusion and the one premise, but there will be one if another is added.
εἰ δὲ μὴ καθόλου ὁ συλλογισμός, ἡ μὲν ἐν ὅλῳ πρότασις οὐ δείκνυται διὰ τὴν αὐτὴν αἰτίαν ἥνπερ εἴπομεν καὶ πρότερον, ἡ δʼ ἐν μέρει δείκνυται, ὅταν ᾖ τὸ καθόλου κατηγορικόν·
But if the syllogism is not universal, the universal premise is not proved for the same reason that we also said before, but the particular one is proved when the universal premise is affirmative.
ὑπαργέτω γὰρ τὸ Α παντὶ τῷ Β, τῷ δὲ Γ μὴ παντί· συμπέρασμα Β Γ ἐὰν οὖν ληφθῇ τὸ Β παντὶ τῷ Α, τῷ δὲ Γ οὐ παντί, τὸ Α τινὶ τῷ οὐχ ὑπάρξει·
For let A belong to every B, and not to every C; the conclusion is about B and C [i.e., that B does not belong to some C]. If, then, B is assumed to belong to every A, and not to every C, A will not belong to some C; the middle term is B.
μέσον Β. εἰ δʼ ἐστὶν ἡ καθόλου στερητική, οὐ δειχθήσεται ἡ Α Γ πρότασις ἀντιστραφέντος τοῦ Α Β· συμβαίνει γὰρ ἢ ἀμφοτέρας ἢ τὴν ἑτέραν πρότασιν γίνεσθαι ἀποφατικήν, ὥστ᾿ οὐκ ἔσται συλλογισμός.
But if the universal premise is negative, the AC premise will not be proved when AB is converted; for it happens that either both premises or one of them becomes negative, so that there will be no syllogism.
ἀλλʼ ὁμοίως δειχθήσεται ὡς καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν καθόλου, ἐὰν ληφθῇ, ὧ τὸ Β τινὶ μὴ ὑπάρχει, τὸ τινὶ ὑπάρχειν.
But it will be proved in the same way as in the case of universal syllogisms, if it is assumed that to whatever B does not belong to some, [A] belongs to some.