Authors/Ockham/Summa Logicae/Book III-1/Chapter 39

Latin	English
Cap. 39. De mixtione contingentis et inesse in tertia figura	Chapter 39. On the mixture of contingent and assertoric propositions in the third figure.
Quando illa de contingenti in tertia figura sumitur in sensu compositionis, non sequitur generaliter conclusio de possibili nec de contingenti in sensu compositionis. Non enim sequitur 'contingit omnem hominem esse album; omnis homo est niger; igitur contingit album esse ƿ nigrum. Tamen si utraque sit universalis affirmativa et subiectum illius de contingenti supponat pro his quae sunt et accipitur in sensu divisionis, sequitur conclusio de possibili in sensu divisionis. Unde ex praedictis praemissis sequitur ista conclusio 'aliquod nigrum potest esse album'. Quod potest probari per syllogismum expositorium, sub universali de contingenti sumendo aliquam singularem de contingenti: illam quae convertitur cum illa de contingenti in sensu divisionis. Similiter si minor sit particularis de inesse et maior de contingenti, sequitur conclusio consimilis. Si autem maior sit particularis, consimiliter sequitur.	When the proposition de contingenti in the third figure is taken in the sense of composition, the conclusion de possibili does not generally follow nor does it follow de contingenti in the sense of composition. For it does not follow 'it is contingent that every man is white; every man is black; therefore it is contingent that white is black. However, if both are universal affirmatives and the subject of that de contingenti supposits for things that are and is taken in the sense of division, the conclusion de possibili follows in the sense of division. Hence from the above premises the conclusion 'something black can be white' follows. Which can be proven by an expository syllogism, taking under the universal de contingenti some singular de contingenti: that which is convertible with that de contingenti in the sense of division. Similarly, if the minor is particular assertoric and the major de contingenti, a similar conclusion follows. But if the major is particular, it follows similarly.
Si autem subiectum illius de contingenti sumatur pro his quae contingunt, non sequitur conclusio. Non enim sequitur 'omne ens contingit creari; omne ens est Deus; igitur Deum contingit creari vel Deus potest creari'.	But if the subject of that de contingenti is taken for things that happen, the conclusion does not follow. For it does not follow that 'every being is contingent to be created; every being is God; therefore God is contingent to be created or God can be created'.
Est autem intelligendum quod sicut in prima figura, ita in secunda et tertia quandocumque illa de contingenti est affirmativa, potest poni in loco ipsius negativa de contingenti; et hoc quia illa de contingenti convertitur per oppositas qualitates. Similiter, quando minor est de inesse in primo modo, secundo et quarto et sexto, perficitur syllogismus per conversionem minoris; et tunc semper oportet subiectum maioris supponere pro his quae sunt vel pro his quae contingunt.	But it is to be understood that as in the first figure, so in the second and third, whenever the de contingenti proposition is affirmative, a negative de contingenti proposition can be put in its place; and this because the de contingenti proposition is converted by opposite qualities. Similarly, when the minor is assertoric in the first, second, fourth and sixth modes, the syllogism is completed by the conversion of the minor; and then it is always necessary to supposit the subject of the major for those things which are or for those things which are contingent.