Book, Paragraph

  1      I,  5 |             happen to be phrased in terms like these. For in all such
  2      I,  8 |             is or is not one of the terms contained in the definition
  3      I,  8 |           and if it be one of those terms, then it will be the genus
  4      I,  8 |           if it be not one of those terms, clearly it would be an
  5      I,  14|               and that "of relative terms". In the same way these
  6      I,  15|             not only treat of those terms which bear different senses,
  7      I,  15| corresponding to each of the former terms the meaning of its contrary
  8      I,  15|         case either of the original terms or of their contraries:
  9      I,  15|       Moreover, examine the case of terms that denote the privation
 10      I,  15|          the opposition between the terms now in question depends
 11      I,  15|            in the case of ambiguous terms, e.g. in the cases just
 12      I,  15|     prevails".~Moreover, see if the terms cannot be compared as "more
 13      I,  17|      especially needed in regard to terms that are far apart; for
 14      I,  18|           number of meanings of our terms. This, however, is not possible
 15     II,  2 |            and of contraries and of terms signifying the privation
 16     II,  2 |        states, and of contradictory terms. Then, if no clear result
 17     II,  2 |            definitions also for the terms contained in his definitions,
 18     II,  2 |           whereas if for one of the terms used in the definition a
 19     II,  2 |            that we ought to use our terms to mean the same things
 20     II,  3 |             of desire and all other terms that have more than one
 21     II,  3 |            in dealing with relative terms: for cases of this kind
 22     II,  3 |         generally cases of relative terms.~
 23     II,  4 |       question, or are described by terms derived from that genus,
 24     II,  4 |          species or be described by terms derived from one of its
 25     II,  8 |             contradictories of your terms, converting the order of
 26     II,  8 |             by contradiction of the terms of the thesis is a method
 27     II,  8 |            it.~The case of relative terms should also be studied in
 28     II,  8 |             in the case of relative terms, in the way described: for
 29     II,  9 |          and inflected forms of the terms in the thesis, both in demolishing
 30     II,  9 |             co-ordinates’ are meant terms such as the following: "
 31     IV,  2 |       opinion", then neither of the terms stated could be its genus
 32     IV,  4 |            and convert the order of terms, according to the method
 33     IV,  4 |         which is the genus of these terms, demands not "to" but "than":
 34     IV,  4 |          and so.~Again, see whether terms used in like case relationships
 35     IV,  4 |        multiple". For each of these terms takes a genitive both in
 36     IV,  4 |           of relations in which the terms are used happens not to
 37     IV,  4 |             of something. Hence the terms in question are not the
 38     IV,  4 |             Seeing that of relative terms some are of necessity found
 39     IV,  4 |      nothing else can the aforesaid terms possibly be found except
 40     IV,  5 |             and of "gains": for the terms "courageous" and "good-tempered"
 41     IV,  5 |        spirited" faculty. Hence the terms rendered are not the genera,
 42     IV,  5 |              so that neither of the terms rendered could be the genus:
 43      V,  2 |          test is to see whether the terms in which the property is
 44      V,  2 |         whether they are so. Of the terms not being more intelligible,
 45      V,  2 |             to be intelligible: the terms therefore in which it is
 46      V,  2 |           purposes, see whether the terms in which the property is
 47      V,  2 |         both used more intelligible terms and has rendered the property
 48      V,  2 |              see whether any of the terms rendered in the property
 49      V,  2 |            see whether both all the terms and also the expression
 50      V,  2 |          whether he has avoided all terms that are common to everything
 51      V,  3 |         further by the use of these terms. Thus (e.g.) any one who
 52      V,  3 |           also in the case of other terms that do or do not make the
 53      V,  4 |           same" and "different" are terms used in several senses,
 54      V,  6 |           an attribute described in terms of a state (X) fails to
 55      V,  6 |          the attribute described in terms of the privation (of X)
 56      V,  6 |           an attribute described in terms of the privation (of X)
 57      V,  6 |          the attribute described in terms of the state (X) be a property
 58      V,  6 |           an attribute described in terms of a state (X) is a property
 59      V,  6 |      attribute that is described in terms of the privation (of X)
 60      V,  6 |           an attribute described in terms of a privation (of X) be
 61      V,  6 |      attribute that is described in terms of the state (X) will be
 62      V,  6 |            of positive and negative terms; and first (a) from the
 63      V,  6 |          the attribute described in terms of it is a property of the
 64      V,  6 |          the attribute described in terms of it will not be a property
 65      V,  6 |          the attribute described in terms of it is a property of the
 66      V,  6 |          the attribute described in terms of it will not be a property
 67     VI,  2 |              balance" are ambiguous terms: it is accordingly not clear
 68     VI,  2 |            see the ambiguity of his terms. Or, again, the questioner
 69     VI,  2 |      harmony. Again, see if he uses terms that are unfamiliar, as
 70     VI,  4 |         make the definition through terms that are prior and more
 71     VI,  4 |            by taking not any random terms, but such as are prior and
 72     VI,  4 |             does not define through terms of this kind has not defined
 73     VI,  4 |      clearly he who defines through terms that are prior and more
 74     VI,  4 |             defined a thing through terms that are prior and more
 75     VI,  4 |           through more intelligible terms may be understood in two
 76     VI,  4 |           either supposing that its terms are absolutely less intelligible,
 77     VI,  4 |            recognize things through terms of that kind, it may perhaps
 78     VI,  4 |        frame the expression through terms that are intelligible to
 79     VI,  4 |            to define is not through terms of that kind, but through
 80     VI,  4 |           through more intelligible terms is the exhibition of the
 81     VI,  4 |       motion.~Of the failure to use terms that are prior there are
 82     VI,  4 |       without the half, and all the terms that are essentially relative:
 83     VI,  4 |            odd" and "even" are such terms: for both are differentiae
 84     VI,  4 |            good, so that the latter terms are subordinate to the former.
 85     VI,  5 |          the expression by means of terms that are prior and more
 86     VI,  5 |           is submitted first of the terms in the definition.~Moreover,
 87     VI,  5 |            does not, e.g. all those terms which are not used essentially
 88     VI,  6 |           at all: for the aforesaid terms do not differentiate anything
 89     VI,  6 |            as, for instance, by the terms "walking", "flying", "aquatic",
 90     VI,  6 |             animals by means of the terms "walking" and "aquatic",
 91     VI,  6 |            differentiae of relative terms are themselves relative,
 92     VI,  7 |      differentiae and all the other terms rendered in definitions
 93     VI,  7 |          definitions in lieu of the terms, and then see if there be
 94     VI,  9 |             in the case of relative terms, see if the species is rendered
 95     VI,  9 |             in the case of contrary terms keep an eye on this mistake,
 96     VI,  10|         single common definition of terms that are used ambiguously.
 97     VI,  10|           are used ambiguously. For terms whose definition corresponding
 98     VI,  10|           at fault. Since ambiguous terms sometimes pass unobserved,
 99     VI,  10|           questioning to treat such terms as though they were synonymous (
100     VI,  11|       seeing that there are no more terms used now than formerly;
101     VI,  11|             whereas in a definition terms ought to be rendered by
102     VI,  11|             in replacing one of the terms by something else he has
103     VI,  12|             in the case of relative terms do not distinguish to what
104     VI,  12|            case with other relative terms: for every object of knowledge
105     VI,  12|           also, with other relative terms, inasmuch as all such are
106    VII,  5 |    necessary to demolish one of the terms used, whereas to establish
107    VII,  5 |            rule it contains several terms; while it is the hardest
108   VIII,  1 |         relating not to the precise terms themselves but to their
109   VIII,  1 | propositions relating to the actual terms themselves, they often find
110   VIII,  3 |      argument are those that employ terms about which, in the first
111   VIII,  3 |       impossible to argue upon such terms; and because of the impossibility
112   VIII,  3 |            same way also with other terms requiring definition. It
113   VIII,  7 |          manner also in the case of terms used obscurely, i.e. in
114   VIII,  13|            in the case of different terms, or a term and an expression,
115   VIII,  13|            were to beg the contrary terms of an antithesis, e.g. that
116   VIII,  14|             case with both relative terms and contraries and co-ordinates.~