Book, Paragraph

 1   I, 10| impossible for one thing to be combined with another. They argue
 2   I, 10|    argue that (i) if both the "combined" constituents persist unaltered,
 3   I, 10|   unaltered, they are no more "combined" now than they were before,
 4   I, 10|    constituents have not been "combined"-on the contrary, one constituent
 5   I, 10|         they cannot "have been combined" since they have no being
 6   I, 10|      not speak of the wood as "combined" with the fire, nor of its
 7   I, 10|       and knowledge cannot be "combined" either, nor any other of
 8   I, 10|       things were together and combined". For not everything can "
 9   I, 10|      the constituents that are combined in the compound must originally
10   I, 10| are-actually, the constituents combined in a compound can "be" in
11   I, 10|        it was before they were combined, and both of them may survive
12   I, 10|  another, have they then "been combined Or ought we to say "No,
13   I, 10|     e.g. of wheat having been "combined" with barley when each grain
14   I, 10|     and therefore, since body "combined" with body is uniform in
15   I, 10|     must not speak of them as "combined". (For this will be a "composition"
16   I, 10|     constituents will only be "combined" relatively to perception:
17   I, 10|        the same thing will be "combined" to one percipient, if his
18   I, 10|       Lynceus nothing will be "combined".) It clearly follows (ii)
19   I, 10|        of the constituents as "combined in virtue of a division
20   I, 10|       what happens when tin is combined with bronze. For some things
21   I, 10|        the bronze: having been combined, it disappears, leaving
22   I, 10|        For such things can be "combined" without its being necessary
23  II, 3 |      and any four terms can be combined in six couples. Contraries,
24  II, 7 |        far as these have been "combined": while the elements" will