Paragraph

 1 1 |              the terms "denial" and "affirmation", then "proposition" and "
 2 4 |          that the whole will form an affirmation or denial. But if we separate
 3 5 |           propositions is the simple affirmation, the next, the simple denial;
 4 6 |                                 6~An affirmation is a positive assertion
 5 6 |           possible to contradict any affirmation or denial. Thus it is plain
 6 6 |          Thus it is plain that every affirmation has an opposite denial,
 7 6 |             every denial an opposite affirmation.~We will call such a pair
 8 7 |             is contrary to truth; no affirmation will, under such circumstances,
 9 7 |             example of this type.~An affirmation is opposed to a denial in
10 7 |        subject remains the same, the affirmation is of universal character
11 7 |           and the denial is not. The affirmation "every man is white" is
12 7 |             contraries when both the affirmation and the denial are universal,
13 7 |            corresponding to a single affirmation is itself single; for the
14 7 |             deny just that which the affirmation affirms concerning the same
15 7 |             must correspond with the affirmation both in the universal or
16 7 |        understood.~For instance, the affirmation "Socrates is white" has
17 7 |            the denial proper to that affirmation, but on that is distinct.~
18 7 |             The denial proper to the affirmation "every man is white" is "
19 7 |           white"; that proper to the affirmation "some men are white" is "
20 7 |             while that proper to the affirmation "man is white" is "man is
21 7 | contradictorily opposite to a single affirmation and we have explained which
22 8 |                                 8~An affirmation or denial is single, if
23 8 |             combine to form one, the affirmation is not single. For instance,
24 8 |         white" would not be a single affirmation, nor its opposite a single
25 9 |              to say that neither the affirmation nor the denial is true,
26 9 |         influenced by the fact of an affirmation or denial on the part of
27 9 |      alternatives, in which case the affirmation is no more true and no more
28 9 |        directions, the corresponding affirmation and denial have the same
29 9 |             not necessary that of an affirmation and a denial one should
30 10|                                10~An affirmation is the statement of a fact
31 10|          subject and predicate in an affirmation must each denote a single
32 10|            an indefinite verb. Every affirmation, then, and every denial,
33 10|          indefinite.~There can be no affirmation or denial without a verb;
34 10|            of time. Thus the primary affirmation and denial are "as follows: "
35 10|           the four, as regards their affirmation and denial, correspond in
36 10|          will make matters clear:~A. Affirmation B. Denial~Man is just Man
37 10|          just~\ /~X~/ \~D. Denial C. Affirmation~Man is not not-just Man
38 10|          Thus we have the table:~A’. Affirmation B’. Denial~Every man is
39 10|                 X~D’. Denial / \ C’. Affirmation~Not every man is not-just
40 11|           There is no unity about an affirmation or denial which, either
41 11|         three form the subject of an affirmation, nor if they form its predicate,
42 11|           there any unity about that affirmation. In both cases the unity
43 14|           question arises whether an affirmation finds its contrary in a
44 14|            in a denial or in another affirmation; whether the proposition "
45 14|        contrary of another, then one affirmation will not find its contrary
46 14|        denial is the contrary of the affirmation about the same subject.