Book, Paragraph

 1      I,  1 |      minor term as subject to a major. Before he was led on to
 2      I,  6 |         with the minor, and the major with the middle.~
 3      I,  9 |         to the same kind as the major and minor terms. The only
 4      I,  11|      the proof lays down as its major premiss that the major is
 5      I,  11|      its major premiss that the major is truly affirmed of the
 6      I,  11|          The reason is that the major term is predicable not only
 7      I,  12|       ambiguity lies, since the major is predicated of the whole
 8      I,  12|  middles mere attributes of the major and minor terms. An instance
 9      I,  12|        may be lateral: e.g. one major A, may be proved of two
10      I,  13|       near, do not twinkle. The major and middle of the proof,
11      I,  13|     fact, but if the middle and major be reversed it is proof
12      I,  13|        middle falls outside the major and minor, for here too
13      I,  16|      indifferently but only the major A-C since, B having no genus,
14      I,  16|         The same is true if the major is made negative instead
15      I,  16|     premiss C-B is true but the major is false. The case is similar
16      I,  16|      The case is similar if the major is made the negative premiss.
17      I,  17|   appropriate" middle, only the major and not both premisses can
18      I,  17|         is not changed. But the major A-C is false, for it is
19      I,  17|       is not subordinate to the major, not only both premisses
20      I,  21|         it is plain that if the major term is denied of a term
21      I,  21| predicable of all B, and if the major is denied of yet another
22      I,  23|       nothing falls outside the major term. In the case of negative
23      I,  23|       nothing falls outside the major term whose inherence is
24      I,  26|         ad impossible; when the major premiss of the syllogism
25      I,  32|        in as middle terms or as major or minor terms, or else
26      I,  34|       instances he has seen the major and minor terms and then
27     II,  6 |        the minor is neither the major itself nor a term identical
28     II,  6 |        or convertible, with the major.~Again, both proof by division
29     II,  8 |       in these examples, of the major term A; for eclipse is constituted
30     II,  8 | assuredly the definition of the major term A. If there be a further
31     II,  12|       series too the middle and major terms must form an immediate
32     II,  12|        and the present event as major. The like is true of future
33     II,  17|      then the definition of the major term-though possible if
34     II,  17|   middle is a definition of the major; which is incidentally the
35     II,  17|       the first middle with the major: but it is the coagulation