Paragraph

 1 5 |      as well. Thus (e.g.), "If Coriscus be different from "man",
 2 5 |     say, "he has admitted that Coriscus is different from a man,
 3 5 |     from whom he said that he (Coriscus) is different is a man".~
 4 14|           it is a log"; "it is Coriscus". Now in the masculine and
 5 14|      it should be "him": e.g. "Coriscus (Kopiskos) is", but "being
 6 14|      Kopiskos) is", but "being Coriscus" (Kopiskon). It happens
 7 17| unavailing. They say, not that Coriscus is both musical and unmusical,
 8 17|       unmusical, but that this Coriscus is musical and this Coriscus
 9 17|   Coriscus is musical and this Coriscus unmusical. But this will
10 17|       not do, for to say "this Coriscus is unmusical", or "musical",
11 17|     musical", and to say "this Coriscus" is so, is to use the same
12 17|       person the simple title "Coriscus", while to the other he
13 17|       though he had asked "Are Coriscus and Callias at home or not
14 22|  Likewise also in the case of "Coriscus" and "Coriscus the musician"
15 22|        case of "Coriscus" and "Coriscus the musician" there is the
16 24|       the same thing as "to be Coriscus", so that suppose I know
17 24|         so that suppose I know Coriscus, but do not know the man
18 24|         for he knows both that Coriscus is Coriscus and that the
19 24|    knows both that Coriscus is Coriscus and that the approaching
20 24|     the approaching figure and Coriscus he knows both that it is
21 24|     approaching and that he is Coriscus.~A like mistake to that
22 26|         But one who knows that Coriscus is Coriscus might be ignorant
23 26|     who knows that Coriscus is Coriscus might be ignorant of the
24 32|    again, "Well, but is not he Coriscus?" and then were to say, "
25 32|    solecism, even if the name "Coriscus" does signify a "she", if,