Paragraph

 1 5 |      to be black all over, but white in respect of his teeth;
 2 5 |     his teeth; then he is both white and not white." Or if both
 3 5 |       he is both white and not white." Or if both characters
 4 5 |      then to ask whether he is white in respect of his teeth;
 5 5 |      teeth; and then, if he be white in that respect, were to
 6 5 | dialectically that he was both white and not white. But in some
 7 5 |      he was both white and not white. But in some cases it often
 8 5 |        e.g. if a thing is half white and half black, is it white
 9 5 |    white and half black, is it white or black?~Other fallacies
10 5 |   grant that the descriptions "white" and "naked" and "blind"
11 6 |       necessarily be, and C is white, there is no necessity for
12 6 |      no necessity for it to be white on account of the syllogism.
13 6 |        the same point. For of "white in a certain respect" the
14 6 |  respect" the negation is "not white in a certain respect", while
15 6 |    certain respect", while of "white absolutely" it is "not white,
16 6 |   white absolutely" it is "not white, absolutely". If, then,
17 6 |     admission that a thing is "white in a certain respect" as
18 6 |      though it were said to be white absolutely, he does not
19 6 |       thing and honey and of a white thing and swan), whereas
20 6 |      are the same as something white’. Or again, as in Melissus’
21 14|       also a "word": and so is white".~It is clear, then, that
22 24|       e.g. one knows that X is white, but does not realize that
23 31|      were to say, "This is not white", he does not say that it
24 31|        does not say that it is white. The bare word "double",