Authors/Ockham/Summa Logicae/Book III-1/Chapter 61

Latin	English
Cap. 61. De mixtione propositionum de contingenti et aliarum modalium in prima figura	Chapter 61. On the mixture of propositions de contingenti and of other modals in the first figure.
Ultimo videndum est de mixtione propositionis de contingenti et ceterarum propositionum modalium. Et prime esset dicendum de mixtione ex propositionibus de contingenti et impossibili, sed illa patet ex mixtione contingentis et necessarii propter causam frequenter dictam;	Finally, we must consider the mixture of a proposition de contingenti and the other modal propositions. And first we would have to speak of the mixture from propositions of contingency and of impossibility, but that is clear from the mixture de contingenti and de necessario for the reason frequently stated;
ideo dicendum est de mixtione contingentis et aliarum modalium, et primo in prima figura.	Therefore, we must speak of the mixture of contingency and other modals, and first in the first figure.
Et est primo sciendum quod si utraque sumatur in sensu compositionis, si illa de modo non inferat illam de necessario, non valet mixtio. Sicut non sequitur 'omne animal esse hominem est scitum a te; omnem asinum esse animal est contingens; igitur omnem asinum esse hominem ƿ est contingens vel possibile'. Nec sequitur 'omne animal esse hominem est contingens; omnem asinum esse animal est scitum a te; igitur omnem asinum esse hominem est possibile vel contingens'.	And it must first be known that if both are taken in the sense of composition, if the one does not infer the other de necessario, the mixture is not valid. Just as it does not follow 'every animal is known by you to be a man; that every donkey is an animal is contingent; therefore every donkey is a man is contingent or possible'. Nor does it follow 'that every animal is a man is contingent; every donkey is known by you to be an animal; therefore that every donkey is a man is possible or contingent'.
Si autem illa de modo inferat illam de necessario, est bona mixtio, quia ex tali de necessario et illa de possibili sequitur conclusio de possibili, sicut dictum est prius; sed illa de possibili sequitur ad illam de contingenti, igitur etc.	But if the modal proposition infers that de necessario, it is a good mixture, because from such a proposition de necessario and that de possibili the conclusion de possibili follows, as was said before; but that de possibili follows to that de contingenti, therefore etc.
Si autem illa de contingenti sumatur in sensu compositionis et alia in sensu divisionis, si illa de contingenti fuerit maior, non valet mixtio, Sicut non sequitur 'omne album esse hominem est contingens; omnis asinus scitur esse albus; igitur omnem asinum esse hominem est possibile'. Si autem illa de alio modo inferat illam de necessario, mixtio est bona. Similiter dicendum est si illa de contingenti sit minor.	But if the proposition de contingenti is taken in the sense of composition and the other in the sense of division, if the one de contingenti is major, the mixture is not valid, just as it does not follow that 'every white thing being a man is contingent; every donkey is known to be white; therefore every donkey being a man is possible'. But if the proposition of another mode infers the one de necessario, the mixture is good. The same must be said if the one de contingenti is minor.
Si autem illa de contingenti sumatur in sensu divisionis, si sit maior, semper sequitur conclusio de possibili quando minor infert suam de inesse et aliter non, quia dictum est prius quod ex tali de contingenti et illa de inesse sequitur conclusio de possibili. Si autem minor non inferat suam de inesse, non valet mixtio. Quando autem illa de contingenti est minor, non valet mixtio; sicut non sequitur 'omne album esse hominem est scitum a te; omnis asinus contingenter potest esse albus; igitur omnis asinus potest esse homo'.	But if the proposition de contingenti is taken in the sense of division, if it is a major, a conclusion de possibili always follows when the minor infers its own assertoric and otherwise not, because it was said before that from such a de contingenti proposition and an assertoric proposition a conclusion de possibili follows. But if the minor does not infer its own assertoric, the mixture is not valid. But when the de contingenti is a minor, the mixture is not valid; just as it does not follow 'every white thing being a man is known by you; every donkey can contingently be white; therefore every donkey can be a man'.
Si autem utraque sumatur in sensu divisionis, si maior fuerit de contingenti, sequitur conclusio de possibili quando minor infert suam de inesse; quando non infert suam de inesse, non valet. Si autem illa de contingenti fuerit minor, non valet; sicut non sequitur 'omne album scitur a te esse homo; omnis asinus contingenter est albus; igitur omnis asinus potest esse homo'. ƿ	But if both are taken in the sense of division, if the major is de contingenti, a conclusion de possibili follows when the minor infers its own assertoric; when it does not infer its own of inherence, it is not valid. But if the minor is de contingenti, it is not valid; just as it does not follow 'every white thing is known by you to be a man; every donkey is contingently white; therefore every donkey can be a man'.