§23Ὅλως δ᾿ ἐν τοῖς παρὰ τὴν λέξιν λόγοις ἀεὶ κατὰ τὸ ἀντικείμενον ἔσται ἡ λύσις ἢ παρ᾿ ὅ ἐστιν ὁ λόγος.
In general, in arguments dependent on language, the solution will always be in accordance with the opposite of that on which the argument depends.
Οἷον εἰ παρὰ σύνθεσιν ὁ λόγος, ἡ λύσις διελόντι, εἰ δὲ παρὰ διαίρεσιν, συνθέντι.
For example, if the argument is due to composition, the solution is for one who divides, and if due to division, for one who composes.
Πάλιν εἰ παρὰ προσῳδίαν ὀξεῖαν, ἡ βαρεῖα προσῳδία λύσις, εἰ δὲ παρὰ βαρεῖαν, ἡ ὀξεῖα.
Again, if it is due to an acute accent, the grave accent is the solution, and if due to a grave, the acute.
Εἰ δὲ παρ᾿ ὁμωνυμίαν, ἔστι τὸ ἀντικείμενον ὄνομα εἰπόντα λύειν, οἷον εἰ ἔμψυχον συμβαίνει λέγειν, ἀποφήσαντα μὴ εἶναι, δηλοῦν ὡς ἔστιν ἔμψυχον· εἰ δ᾿ ἄψυχον ἔφησεν, ὁ δ᾿ ἔμψυχον συνελογίσατο, λέγειν ὡς ἔστιν ἄψυχον.
If it is due to homonymy, it is possible to solve it by stating the opposite name; for example, if it happens that one says "animate", by denying that it is so, and showing how it is animate; but if one said "inanimate", and the other deduced "animate", by saying that it is inanimate.
Ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς ἀμφιβολίας.
Similarly also in the case of ambiguity.
Εἰ δὲ παρ᾿ ὁμοιότητα λέξεως, τὸ ἀντικείμενον ἔσται λύσις.
And if it is due to the similarity of language, the opposite will be the solution.
Ἆρ᾿ ὃ μὴ ἔχει, δοίη ἄν τις; ἢ οὐχ ὃ μὴ ἔχει, ἀλλ᾿ ὡς οὐκ ἔχει, οἷον ἕνα μόνον ἀστράγαλον.
"Would anyone give what he does not have?" No, not what he does not have, but in the way in which he does not have it, for instance, only one die.
Ἆρ᾿ ὃ ἐπίσταται, μαθὼν ἢ εὑρὼν ἐπίσταται; ἀλλ᾿ οὐχ ἃ ἐπίσταται.
"Does one know what one knows by having learned or found it?" Yes, but not the things which one knows.
Καὶ εἰ ὃ βαδίζει πατεῖ, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχ ὅτε.
And if "one tramples what one walks", but not when one walks.
Ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων.
Similarly also in the other cases.