Changes

*Marenbon, J., <i>Later Medieval Philosophy (1150-1350)</i>, Routledge 1991, c. 8.

*Marenbon, J., <i>Later Medieval Philosophy (1150-1350)</i>, Routledge 1991, c. 8.

*Pinborg, J., <i>Die Entwicklung de Sprachtheorie im Mittelalter, Beitrдge zur Geschichte der Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters</i>, Texte und Untersuchungen 42/2 Mьnster: Aschendorff; Copenhagen: Frost-Hansen (1967).

*Pinborg, J., <i>Die Entwicklung de Sprachtheorie im Mittelalter, Beitrдge zur Geschichte der Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters</i>, Texte und Untersuchungen 42/2 Mьnster: Aschendorff; Copenhagen: Frost-Hansen (1967).

Rosier, Irиne. 1983. <i>La grammaire spйculative des modistes</i>. Lille: Presses Universitaires.  

*Rosier, Irиne. 1983. <i>La grammaire spйculative des modistes</i>. Lille: Presses Universitaires.  

   

   

|- valign = top

|- valign = top

||<div id="Q2N1">OPPOSITUM vult philosophus<ref> [N6] <i>Locum non inveni</i>.  Aristotle - quorumque unum diminuit de ratione alterius.  Scotus (<b>link to follow</b> ' Questions on the Perihermenias, <b>Q7 arg 2</b>) Item per Aristotelem secundo peryarmenias, quando non est oppositio in adiecto in praedicato nec praedicatur esse secundum accidens, tunc tenet consequentia a coniunctis ad divisa.  (Chapter 14).  See also Scotus, [Q 24 questions on the book of Porphyry ' <b>link to follow</b>]</ref> quod quando talia sunt composita quorum unum diminuit de ratione alterius, tunc non licet ex talibus coniunctis inferret divisum, quia ibi est oppositio in obiecto ut homo mortuus ergo homo.

||<div id="Q2N1">OPPOSITUM vult philosophus<ref><i>Locum non inveni</i>.  Aristotle - quorumque unum diminuit de ratione alterius.  Scotus (<b>link to follow</b> ' Questions on the Perihermenias, <b>Q7 arg 2</b>) Item per Aristotelem secundo peryarmenias, quando non est oppositio in adiecto in praedicato nec praedicatur esse secundum accidens, tunc tenet consequentia a coniunctis ad divisa.  (Chapter 14).  See also Scotus, [Q 24 questions on the book of Porphyry ' <b>link to follow</b>]</ref> quod quando talia sunt composita quorum unum diminuit de ratione alterius, tunc non licet ex talibus coniunctis inferret divisum, quia ibi est oppositio in obiecto ut homo mortuus ergo homo.

  ||    On the opposing side, the Philosopher would have it that when such things are composite of which one diminishes the logical nature of the other, then it is not allowed that from such conjunctions there is implied [<i>inferret</i>] a divided conclusion, because in such a case [ibi] there is opposition <i>in obiecto</i><ref>I was unsure how to translate this, so left it in the Latin.  Literally it is 'opposition in the object', but it clearly has a technical flavour like <i>contradictio in adiecto</i>. </ref>, as in 'a dead man, therefore a man'.

  ||    On the opposing side, the Philosopher would have it that when such things are composite of which one diminishes the logical nature of the other, then it is not allowed that from such conjunctions there is implied [<i>inferret</i>] a divided conclusion, because in such a case [ibi] there is opposition <i>in obiecto</i><ref>I was unsure how to translate this, so left it in the Latin.  Literally it is 'opposition in the object', but it clearly has a technical flavour like <i>contradictio in adiecto</i>. </ref>, as in 'a dead man, therefore a man'.

   

   

||<div id="Q2adN2">Ad [[#Q2P2|aliam]] cum dicitur quandocumque in aliquo antecedente sumuntur duo contradictoria {et} verum est et cum dicitur in illo antecedente sortes est homo mortuus includuntur duo contradictoria, falsum est, quia dicendo sortes est homo mortuus, homo hic non stat pro homine vivo vel vero, sed secundum exigentiam mortui ut visum est.  Unde si acciperetur secundum se, sic esset contradictio.  Unde bene est oppositum in obiecto inter homine et mortuum, ratione de li hominis secundum se sumpti in consequente, et ratione de li mortui [http://diglib.hab.de/show_image.php?dir=inkunabeln/3-8-log-1&lang=en&image=00179 179]sumpti in consequente ut dictum est sed secundum quod aggregatum simul in antecedente dicendo homo mortuus, quia tunc homo teneretur secundum exigentiam mortui et sic non opponuntur.

||<div id="Q2adN2">Ad [[#Q2P2|aliam]] cum dicitur quandocumque in aliquo antecedente sumuntur duo contradictoria {et} verum est et cum dicitur in illo antecedente sortes est homo mortuus includuntur duo contradictoria, falsum est, quia dicendo sortes est homo mortuus, homo hic non stat pro homine vivo vel vero, sed secundum exigentiam mortui ut visum est.  Unde si acciperetur secundum se, sic esset contradictio.  Unde bene est oppositum in obiecto inter homine et mortuum, ratione de li hominis secundum se sumpti in consequente, et ratione de li mortui [http://diglib.hab.de/show_image.php?dir=inkunabeln/3-8-log-1&lang=en&image=00179 179]sumpti in consequente ut dictum est sed secundum quod aggregatum simul in antecedente dicendo homo mortuus, quia tunc homo teneretur secundum exigentiam mortui et sic non opponuntur.

  ||    To the other, when it is said, whenever in any antecedent there are taken two contradictories, it is true, and when it is said, in that antecedent 'Socrates is a dead man', there are two contradictories involved, it is false, because in saying 'Socrates is a dead man', 'man' here does not stand for a living or true man, but as it is required by 'dead', as we saw.  Wherefore, if it were taken according to itself, there would be a contradiction.  Wherefore, rightly [<i>bene</i>] there is opposition <i>in obiecto</i> between 'man' and 'dead', by reason of the word 'man', taken according to itself in the consequent, and by reason of the word 'dead' taken in the consequent, as was said, but according as the aggregate together in the antecedent by saying 'dead man', because then 'man' would be held [as] required by 'dead', and thus they are not opposed.

  ||    To the other, when it is said, whenever in any antecedent there are taken two contradictories, it is true, and when it is said, in that antecedent 'Socrates is a dead man', there are two contradictories involved, it is false, because in saying 'Socrates is a dead man', 'man' here does not stand for a living or true man, but as it is required by 'dead', as we saw.  Wherefore, if it were taken according to itself, there would be a contradiction.  Wherefore, rightly [<i>bene</i>] there is opposition <i>in obiecto</i> between 'man' and 'dead', by reason of the word 'man', taken according to itself in the consequent, and by reason of the word 'dead' taken in the consequent, as was said, but according as the aggregate together in the antecedent by saying 'dead man', because then 'man' would be held [as] required by 'dead', and thus they are not opposed.

  |}  

  |}  

==Endnotes==

==Endnotes==

{{reflist}}

{{reflist}}

[[Category:Logic Museum Parallel Texts]]

[[Category:Logic Museum Parallel Texts]]