Authors/Ockham/Summa Logicae/Book II/Chapter 20

Latin	English
[2.20 DE PROPOSITIONIBUS IN QUIBUS PONITUR HOC VERBUM 'FIT' ET DE EARUM AEQUIVALENTIBUS]	Chapter 20. On Propositions in which the Verb 'Become' Occurs.
Sicut autem propositio in qua ponitur aliquod istorum verborum habet duas exponentes, ita propositiones in quibus ponitur hoc verbum 'fit' vel ei aequivalens, quale est hoc totum 'factus est' vel 'factum est' vel huiusmodi, habet duas exponentes, scilicet unam de praesenti et aliam de praeterito vel de futuro. Sicut ista 'Sortes fit albus' habet istas exponentes 'Sortes est albus' et 'non semper fuit albus'. Similiter ista 'Sortes fiet albus' habet istas exponentes 'Sortes non est albus et pro aliquo tempore non erit albus' et 'Sortes erit albus'. Similiter est de talibus 'Sortes factus est homo', 'Sortes factus est coloratus', et sic de consimilibus.	But just as a proposition in which any of these words is used has two exponents, so propositions in which this word 'become' or its equivalent is used, such as this whole 'he became' or 'it became' or the like, have two exponents, namely one from the present and the other from the past or future. Just as 'Socrates becomes white' has these exponents 'Socrates is white' and 'he was not always white'. Similarly, 'Socrates will become white' has these exponents 'Socrates is not white and for some time will not be white' and 'Socrates will be white'. Similarly, it is the case with such things as 'Socrates became a man', 'Socrates became colored', and so on.
Sicut autem quando in propositione ponitur hoc verbum 'incipit' vel 'desinit' propositio non convertitur nulla facta variatione praeter solam transpositionem illius quod praecedit et quod sequitur verbum, sic est in istis. Et ideo de virtute sermonis ista consequentia negari debet 'Filius Dei factus est homo, igitur homo factus est Filius Dei', quamvis tales propositiones Sancti aliquando concedunt sub vero intellectu. Similiter non sequitur 'Filius Dei fit homo, igitur homo fit Filius Dei', et hoc quia altera exponens non convertitur illo modo. Non enim sequitur 'Filius Dei non semper fuit homo, igitur non semper homo fuit Filius Dei'. Unde secundum proprietatem sermonis concedi debet quod homo semper fuit Filius Dei; unde Christus dixit: Antequam Abraham fieret, ego sum.	But just as when the word 'begins' or 'ends' is used in a proposition, the proposition is not converted by any variation except for the mere transposition of what precedes and what follows the word, so it is in these. And therefore, literally speaking, this consequence must be denied: 'The Son of God became man, therefore man became Son of God', although such propositions are sometimes granted by the Saints under their true understanding. Similarly, it does not follow: 'The Son of God becomes man, therefore man becomes Son of God', and this because the other exponent is not converted in that way. For it does not follow: 'The Son of God was not always man, therefore man was not always Son of God'. Hence, according to the property of the discourse, it must be granted that man was always Son of God; hence Christ said: Before Abraham was made, I am.
Similiter, ab inferiori ad superius a parte praedicati non tenet consequentia in talibus propositionibus. Unde non sequitur 'Sortes fit albus, ergo Sortes fit coloratus'. Similiter, secundum proprietatem sermonis non sequitur 'Filius Dei fit homo, igitur Filius Dei fit exsistens', nec sequitur 'igitur fit aliquid', secundum proprietatem sermonis.	Similarly, from inferior to superior on the part of the predicate, the consequence does not hold in such propositions. Hence it does not follow that 'Socrates becomes white, therefore Socrates becomes colored'. Similarly, according to proper speech it does not follow that 'The Son of God becomes man, therefore the Son of God becomes existent', nor does it follow that 'therefore something becomes', according to proper speech.
Et si dicatur quod Filius Dei fit homo vel factus est homo, aut igitur fit aliquid aut nihil, et non fit aliquid, ergo fit nihil, dicendum quod non sequitur 'Filius Dei fit homo, igitur Filius Dei fit aliquid' vel 'Filius Dei fit nihil', sicut non sequitur 'Sortes incipit esse albus, igitur Sortes incipit esse ens' vel 'incipit esse nihil'. Et ideo utraque pars talium disiunctivarum neganda est.	And if it is said that the Son of God becomes man or was made man, therefore either he becomes something or nothing, and does not become something, therefore he becomes nothing, it must be said that it does not follow that 'the Son of God becomes man, therefore the Son of God becomes something' or 'the Son of God becomes nothing', just as it does not follow that 'Socrates begins to be white, therefore Socrates begins to be a being' or 'he begins to be nothing'. And therefore, both parts of such disjunctives must be denied.
Verumtamen sciendum est quod multae tales propositiones a Sanctis inveniuntur 'homo factus est Deus', sicut tales 'homo incipit esse Deus', quae non sunt verae secundum proprietatem sermonis sed secundum intellectum Sanctorum.	However, it should be known that many such propositions are found in the Saints as 'man became God', such as 'man begins to be God', which are not true according to the proper meaning of the words but according to the understanding of the Saints.
Similiter, sicut talis discursus non valet 'omne album est coloratum; Sortes incipit esse albus; igitur Sortes incipit esse coloratus', sic talis discursus non valet 'omnis homo est aliquid; Filius Dei factus est homo; igitur Filius Dei factus est aliquid'; et hoc propter consimilem causam.	Similarly, just as such a discourse is not valid as 'every white thing is colored; Socrates begins to be white; therefore, Socrates begins to be colored', so such a discourse is not valid as 'every man is something; the Son of God became man; therefore, the Son of God became something'; and this for a similar reason.
Ista de propositionibus categoricis, aequivalentibus propositionibus hypotheticis, ad praesens sufficiant, quamvis restent multa dicenda de quibus in diversis locis dicetur.	Let this suffice for the present about categorical propositions, equivalent to hypothetical propositions, although much remains to be said, about which it will be said in various places.