§7Ἐπεὶ δ᾿ ἐστὶ τὰ μὲν καθόλου τῶν πραγμάτων τὰ δὲ καθ᾿ ἕκαστον (λέγω δὲ καθόλου μὲν ὃ ἐπὶ πλειόνων πέφυκε κατηγορεῖσθαι, καθ᾿ ἕκαστον δὲ ὃ μή, οἷον ἄνθρωπος μὲν τῶν καθόλου, Καλλίας δὲ τῶν καθ᾿ ἕκαστον)· ἀνάγκη δὲ ἀποφαίνεσθαι ὡς ὑπάρχει τι ἢ μὴ ὁτὲ μὲν τῶν καθόλου τινί, ὁτὲ δὲ τῶν καθ᾿ ἕκαστον.
Since some things are universal and others particular (by 'universal' I mean what is naturally predicated of many things, and by 'particular' what is not; for example, 'man' is one of the universals, and 'Callias' one of the particulars); and it is necessary to assert that something belongs or does not belong, sometimes of one of the universals, and sometimes of a particular.
Ἐὰν μὲν οὖν καθόλου ἀποφαίνηται ἐπὶ τοῦ καθόλου ὅτι ὑπάρχει τι ἢ μή, ἔσονται ἐναντίαι αἱ ἀποφάνσεις.
If, then, one asserts universally of a universal that something belongs or does not belong, these assertions will be contraries.
Λέγω δὲ ἐπὶ τοῦ καθόλου ἀποφαίνεσθαι καθόλου, οἷον πᾶς ἄνθρωπος λευκός, οὐδεὶς ἄνθρωπος λευκός.
By "asserting universally of a universal" I mean, for example, "every man is white", "no man is white".
Ὅταν δὲ ἐπὶ τῶν καθόλου μέν, μὴ καθόλου δέ, αὗται μὲν οὐκ εἰσὶν ἐναντίαι, τὰ μέντοι δηλούμενα ἔστιν εἶναι ἐναντία ποτέ.
But when one asserts of universals, but not universally, these are not themselves contraries, though the things revealed by them can sometimes be contrary.
Λέγω δὲ τὸ μὴ καθόλου ἀποφαίνεσθαι ἐπὶ τῶν καθόλου, οἷον ἔστι λευκὸς ἄνθρωπος, οὐκ ἔστι λευκὸς ἄνθρωπος· καθόλου γὰρ ὄντος τοῦ ἄνθρωπος οὐχ ὡς καθόλου κέχρηται τῇ ἀποφάνσει·
I mean "asserting of universals but not universally", for example, "man is white", "man is not white"; for although "man" is a universal, the assertion does not use it as a universal.
τὸ γὰρ πᾶς οὐ τὸ καθόλου σημαίνει ἀλλ᾿ ὅτι καθόλου.
For "every" does not signify the universal, but rather that it is asserted universally.
Ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ κατηγορουμένου καθόλου κατηγορεῖν τὸ καθόλου οὐκ ἔστιν ἀληθές· οὐδεμία γὰρ κατάφασις ἀληθὴς ἔσται, ἐν ᾗ τοῦ κατηγορουμένου καθόλου τὸ καθόλου κατηγορεῖται, οἷον ἔστι πᾶς ἄνθρωπος πᾶν ζῷον.
But to predicate the universal universally of a predicate is not true; for there will be no true affirmation in which the universal is predicated universally of a predicate, for example, "every man is every animal".
Ἀντικεῖσθαι μὲν οὖν κατάφασιν ἀποφάσει λέγω ἀντιφατικῶς τὴν τὸ καθόλου σημαίνουσαν τῷ αὐτῷ ὅτι οὐ καθόλου, οἷον πᾶς ἄνθρωπος λευκός — οὐ πᾶς ἄνθρωπος λευκός, οὐδεὶς ἄνθρωπος λευκός — ἔστι τις ἄνθρωπος λευκός· ἐναντίως δὲ τὴν τοῦ καθόλου κατάφασιν καὶ τὴν τοῦ καθόλου ἀπόφασιν, οἷον πᾶς ἄνθρωπος λευκός — οὐδεὶς ἄνθρωπος λευκός, πᾶς ἄνθρωπος δίκαιος — οὐδεὶς ἄνθρωπος δίκαιος.
I say, then, that an affirmation is opposed to a negation contradictorily when the one signifying a universal is opposed to the same not universally, for example, "every man is white" — "not every man is white", "no man is white" — "some man is white"; but they are opposed contrarily when the universal affirmation and the universal negation are opposed, for example, "every man is white" — "no man is white", "every man is just" — "no man is just".
Διὸ ταύτας μὲν οὐχ οἷόν τε ἅμα ἀληθεῖς εἶναι, τὰς δὲ ἀντικειμένας αὐταῖς ἐνδέχεταί ποτε ἐπὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἅμα ἀληθεῖς εἶναι, οἷον οὐ πᾶς ἄνθρωπος λευκός καὶ ἔστι τις ἄνθρωπος λευκός.
Therefore, these latter (contraries) cannot be true at the same time, but the contradictories opposed to them can sometimes be true at the same time of the same thing, for example, "not every man is white" and "some man is white".
Ὅσαι μὲν οὖν ἀντιφάσεις τῶν καθόλου εἰσὶ καθόλου, ἀνάγκη τὴν ἑτέραν ἀληθῆ εἶναι ἢ ψευδῆ, καὶ ὅσαι ἐπὶ τῶν καθ᾿ ἕκαστα, οἷον ἔστι Σωκράτης λευκός — οὐκ ἔστι Σωκράτης λευκός· ὅσαι δὲ ἐπὶ τῶν καθόλου μέν, μὴ καθόλου δέ, οὐκ ἀεὶ ἡ μὲν ἀληθὴς ἡ δὲ ψευδής.
Therefore, of those contradictions of universals which are universal, it is necessary that one of them be true and the other false, and similarly with those concerning particulars, for example, "Socrates is white" — "Socrates is not white"; but for those concerning universals, but not universally, it is not always the case that one is true and the other false.
Ἅμα γὰρ ἀληθές ἐστιν εἰπεῖν ὅτι ἔστιν ἄνθρωπος λευκὸς καὶ ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν ἄνθρωπος λευκός, καὶ ἔστιν ἄνθρωπος καλὸς καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄνθρωπος καλός.
For it is possible at the same time to say truly that "man is white" and that "man is not white", and "man is beautiful" and "man is not beautiful".
Εἰ γὰρ αἰσχρός, καὶ οὐ καλός· καὶ εἰ γίνεταί τι, καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν.
For if a man is ugly, he is not beautiful; and if something is coming to be, it is not yet.
Δόξειε δ᾿ ἂν ἐξαίφνης ἄτοπον εἶναι διὰ τὸ φαίνεσθαι σημαίνειν τὸ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄνθρωπος λευκός ἅμα καὶ ὅτι οὐδεὶς ἄνθρωπος λευκός· τὸ δὲ οὔτε ταὐτὸν σημαίνει οὔθ᾿ ἅμα ἐξ ἀνάγκης.
This might suddenly seem absurd, because "man is not white" seems to signify at the same time "no man is white"; but it signifies neither the same thing nor does it hold at the same time of necessity.
Φανερὸν δὲ ὅτι καὶ μία ἀπόφασις μιᾶς καταφάσεώς ἐστι· τὸ γὰρ αὐτὸ δεῖ ἀποφῆσαι τὴν ἀπόφασιν ὅπερ κατέφησεν ἡ κατάφασις, καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ αὐτοῦ, ἢ τῶν καθ᾿ ἕκαστά τινος ἢ ἀπὸ τῶν καθόλου τινός, ἢ ὡς καθόλου ἢ ὡς μὴ καθόλου.
It is also clear that one negation corresponds to one affirmation; for the negation must deny the very same thing that the affirmation affirmed, and of the same subject, whether it is one of the particulars or one of the universals, and either universally or not universally.
Λέγω δὲ οἷον ἔστι Σωκράτης λευκός — οὐκ ἔστι Σωκράτης λευκός.
I mean, for example, "Socrates is white" — "Socrates is not white".
Ἐὰν δὲ ἄλλο τι ἢ ἀπ᾿ ἄλλου τὸ αὐτό, οὐχ ἡ ἀντικειμένη ἀλλ᾿ ἔσται ἐκείνης ἑτέρα.
But if one denies something else, or denies the same thing of something else, it will not be the opposed negation, but a different one.
Τῇ δὲ πᾶς ἄνθρωπος λευκός ἡ οὐ πᾶς ἄνθρωπος λευκός, τῇ δὲ τὶς ἄνθρωπος λευκός ἡ οὐδεὶς ἄνθρωπος λευκός· τῇ δὲ ἔστιν ἄνθρωπος λευκός ἡ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄνθρωπος λευκός.
To "every man is white" is opposed "not every man is white"; to "some man is white" is opposed "no man is white"; to "man is white" is opposed "man is not white".
Ὅτι μὲν οὖν μιᾷ καταφάσει μία ἀπόφασις ἀντίκειται ἀντιφατικῶς, καὶ τίνες εἰσὶν αὗται, εἴρηται· καὶ ὅτι αἱ ἐναντίαι ἄλλαι, καὶ τίνες εἰσὶν αὗται, εἴρηται· καὶ ὅτι οὐ πᾶσα ἀληθὴς ἢ ψευδὴς ἀντίφασις, καὶ διὰ τί, καὶ πότε ἀληθὴς ἢ ψευδής.
That, then, one negation is opposed contradictorily to one affirmation, and which these are, has been said; and that the contraries are other, and which these are, has also been said; and that not every contradiction is true or false, and why, and when it is true or false.
§8Μία δέ ἐστι κατάφασις καὶ ἀπόφασις ἡ ἓν καθ᾿ ἑνὸς σημαίνουσα, ἢ καθόλου ὄντος καθόλου ἢ μὴ ὁμοίως, οἷον πᾶς ἄνθρωπος λευκός ἐστιν — οὐκ ἔστι πᾶς ἄνθρωπος λευκός, ἔστιν ἄνθρωπος λευκός — οὐκ ἔστιν ἄνθρωπος λευκός, οὐδεὶς ἄνθρωπος λευκός — ἔστι τις ἄνθρωπος λευκός, εἰ τὸ λευκὸν ἓν σημαίνει.
An affirmation and a negation are single if they signify one thing of one subject, whether the subject is universal and is spoken of universally, or not likewise, for example, "every man is white" — "not every man is white", "man is white" — "man is not white", "no man is white" — "some man is white", provided that "white" signifies one thing.
Εἰ δὲ δυοῖν ἓν ὄνομα κεῖται, ἐξ ὧν μή ἐστιν ἕν, οὐ μία κατάφασις οὐδὲ ἀπόφασις μία, οἷον εἴ τις θεῖτο ὄνομα ἱμάτιον ἵππῳ καὶ ἀνθρώπῳ, τὸ ἔστιν ἱμάτιον λευκόν, αὕτη οὐ μία κατάφασις οὐδὲ ἀπόφασις μία.
But if one name is given to two things from which one thing does not arise, there is not a single affirmation or a single negation.
Οὐδὲν γὰρ διαφέρει τοῦτο εἰπεῖν ἢ ἔστιν ἵππος καὶ ἄνθρωπος λευκός.
For example, if someone were to give the name "cloak" to both horse and man, then "the cloak is white" is not a single affirmation nor a single negation.
Τοῦτο δὲ οὐδὲν διαφέρει τοῦ εἰπεῖν ἔστιν ἵππος λευκὸς καὶ ἔστιν ἄνθρωπος λευκός.
For saying this does not differ at all from saying "horse and man are white", and this does not differ at all from saying "the horse is white" and "the man is white".
Εἰ οὖν αὗται πολλὰ σημαίνουσι καὶ εἰσὶ πολλαί, δῆλον ὅτι καὶ ἡ πρώτη ἤτοι πολλὰ ἢ οὐδὲν σημαίνει· οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ὁ τὶς ἄνθρωπος ἵππος.
If, then, these signify many things and are many, it is clear that the first assertion also signifies either many things or nothing; for no particular man is a horse.
Ὥστε οὐδ᾿ ἐν ταύταις ἀνάγκη τὴν μὲν ἀληθῆ τὴν δὲ ψευδῆ εἶναι ἀντίφασιν.
Consequently, not even in these cases is it necessary that one contradictory be true and the other false.