Authors/Ockham/Summa Logicae/Book III-1/Chapter 19

Latin	English
[Cap. 19. De syllogismis in tertia figura ex propositionibus de praeterito et de futuro]	[Chapter 19.  Of syllogisms in the third figure from propositions of the past and future]
In tertia figura, si subiectum utriusque praemissae accipiatur uniformiter, semper sequitur conclusio de praeterito, subiecto conclusionis accepto pro eo quod fuit; quia ex opposito conclusionis, quae erit de praeterito et cuius subiectum supponit pro his quae fuerunt, et minore de praeterito sequitur conclusio de praeterito, in qua subiectum eodem modo supponet sicut supponit in minore, quia - per casum - subiectum praemissarum supponit uniformiter in utraque praemissa primi syllogismi.	In the third figure, if the subject of both premises is taken uniformly, a conclusion about the past always follows, the subject of the conclusion being taken for what was; because from the opposite of the conclusion, which will be about the past and whose subject supposits for what was, and from the minor about the past, a conclusion about the past follows, in which the subject will supposit in the same way as it supposits in the minor, because - by chance - the subject of the premises supposits uniformly in both premises of the first syllogism.
Propter quod sciendum quod quando arguitur ex omnibus de praeterito in prima figura, subiectum conclusionis debet habere eandem acceptionem in conclusione et in minore. Si autem subiectum in una supponat pro his quae sunt et in alia pro his quae fuerunt, tunc si supponat pro his quae sunt in maiore et pro his quae fuerunt in minore, tunc nulla conclusio sequitur. Sicut non sequitur ‘omne album fuit currens; omne album fuit nigrum; igitur nigrum fuit currens’. Nam poƿnatur quod omne, quod unquam fuit nigrum, fuit lignum, et quod tantum lignum fuit nigrum, et quod homo modo primo sit albus, et quod quilibet homo, qui est modo albus, currebat, tunc haec est vera ‘omne album fuit currens’, quia omne, quod est album, fuit currens; et haec est vera ‘omne album fuit nigrum’, quia omne, quod fuit album, fuit nigrum; et tamen haec est falsa ‘aliquod nigrum fuit currens’, sive ‘nigrum’ accipiatur pro his quae sunt sive pro his quae fuerunt. Et ita non sequitur conclusio de praeterito, nec sequitur conclusio de praesenti, sicut manifeste patet.	Because of which it should be known that when an argument is made from all things about the past in the first figure, the subject of the conclusion must have the same meaning in the conclusion and in the minor. But if the subject in one supposits for things that are and in another for things that were, then if it supposits for things that are in the major and for things that were in the minor, then no conclusion follows. Just as it does not follow that ‘every white thing was running; every white thing was black; therefore a black thing was running’. For if it is posited that everything that was ever black was wood, and that only wood was black, and that man is only white at first, and that every man who is only white ran, then this is true ‘every white thing was running’, because everything that is white was running; and this is true ‘every white thing was black’, because everything that was white was black; and yet this is false ‘something black was running’, whether ‘black’ is taken for things that are or for things that were. And thus the conclusion does not follow from the past, nor does the conclusion follow from the present, as is clearly evident.
Si autem supponat pro his quae fuerunt in maiore et in minore pro his quae sunt, sic nulla conclusio sequitur. Nam ponatur quod homo tantum fuerit albus et quod modo nihil sic album nisi lignum, tunc sunt istae praemissae verae ‘omne album fuit homo; omne album fuit lignum’, et tamen. haec est falsa ‘aliquod lignum fuit homo’.	But if it supposits for those things that were in the major and for those things that are in the minor, then no conclusion follows. For let it be assumed that only man was white and that nothing is white except wood, then these premises are true ‘everything white was a man; everything white was wood’, and yet this is false ‘some wood was a man’.
Ex quo sequitur quod ex maiore de praeterito et minore de praeterito, subiecto supponente pro his quae sunt, non sequitur conclusio de praeterito, subiecto supponente pro his quae fuerunt.	From which it follows that from a major about the past and a minor about the past, with a subject suppositing for things that are, a conclusion about the past does not follow, with a subject suppositing for things that were.
Si autem maior sit de praeterito et minor de praesenti, si subiectum maioris supponat pro his quae sunt, sequitur conclusio de praeterito, subiecto conclusionis supponente pro his quae sunt; quia ex opposito conclusionis et minore sequitur in prima figura oppositum maioris, sicut patet ibidem. Si autem subiectum maioris supponat pro his quae fuerunt, nulla sequitur conclusio. Nam ponatur quod nihil fuerit nigrum nisi homo, et quod nihil sit nigrum nisi corvus, tunc non sequitur ‘omne nigrum fuit homo; omne nigrum est corvus; igitur corvus est homo’.	But if the major is about the past and the minor about the present, if the subject of the major supposits for things that are, the conclusion follows about the past, with the subject of the conclusion suppositing for things that are; because from the opposite of the conclusion and the minor follows in the first figure the opposite of the major, as is clear there. But if the subject of the major supposits for things that were, no conclusion follows. For let us suppose that nothing was black except man, and that nothing is black except a raven, then it does not follow that ‘everything black was a man; everything black is a raven; therefore a raven is a man’.
Si autem maior sit de praesenti et minor de praeterito, tunc nulla conclusio sequitur, quia ex opposito conclusionis et minore non sequitur oppositum maioris in prima figura.	But if the major is about the present and the minor about the past, then no conclusion follows, because from the opposite of the conclusion and the minor the opposite of the major in the first figure does not follow.
Sciendum est etiam quod si maior sit de praeterito et minor de praesenti, sive subiectum maioris supponat pro his quae sunt sive pro his ƿ quae fuerunt, nulla sequitur conclusio; quia ex opposito conclusion et maiore non sequitur oppositum minoris in prima figura, quia quando maior est de praeterito in prima figura, non sequitur conclusio de praesenti.	It should also be known that if the major is about the past and the minor about the present, whether the subject of the major supposits for things that are or for things that have been, no conclusion follows; because from the opposite conclusion and the major the opposite of the minor in the first figure does not follow, because when the major is about the past in the first figure, no conclusion about the present follows.
Si autem in hac tertia figura maior sit de praesenti et minor de praeterito, nulla sequitur conclusio, quia ex opposito non sequitur, cum maior in prima figura non debeat esse de praesenti respectu conclusionis de praeterito.	But if in this third figure the major is of the present and the minor of the past, no conclusion follows, because from the opposite it does not follow , since the major in the first figure should not be of the present with respect to the conclusion of the past .