Authors/Ockham/Summa Logicae/Book III-4/Chapter 9

Latin	English
CAP. 9. DE FALLACIA ACCENTUS.	Chapter 9. On the fallacy of accent.
Circa fallaciam accentus est primo sciendum quod ex hoc accidit deceptio penes fallaciam accentus quod eadem vox sub diversis accentibus prolata diversa significat. Et hoc potest tripliciter contingere.	Regarding the fallacy of accent, it is first to be known that the fallacy of accent arises from this, that the same word under different accents means different things. And this can happen in three ways.
Uno modo quia eiusdem dictionis aliqua syllaba potest habere diversos accentus; alio modo quia eadem dictio potest pronuntiari cum aspiratione et sine aspiratione; tertio modo quia eadem vox potest esse dictio vel oratio.	In the first place, because some syllables of the same speech may have different stresses; in another way, because the same expression can be pronounced with aspiration and without aspiration; thirdly, because the same word can be a saying or a statement.
Primus modus magis est idoneus ad decipiendum in scripto quam in prolatione, eo quod talis dictio non scribitur nisi uno modo, profertur tamen modis diversis. Et penes istum modum distinguenda est ista oratio `bonum est iustos viros pendere', eo quod media huius dictionis `pendere' potest corripi vel produci.	The first method is more apt to deceive in writing than in pronunciation, because such an expression is not written but in one way, yet it is pronounced in different ways. And according to this method, the sentence `it is good to hang righteous men' is to be distinguished, by the fact that the middle of this saying `hang' can be rebuked or produced.
Secundus modus numquam decipit in scripto sed tantum in prolatione, propter hoc quod in scripto oportet quod aspiratio simpliciter et sensibiliter ponatur vel quod nullo modo ponatur.	The second method never fails in writing, but only in pronunciation, for the reason that in writing the aspiration must be simply and sensibly placed, or that it is not placed at all.
In prolatione autem quandoque nec bene nec faciliter discernitur an dictio proferatur cum aspiratione vel sine aspiratione.	In pronunciation, however, it is sometimes neither well nor easily distinguished whether the utterance is pronounced with aspiration or without aspiration.
Tertius modus potest decipere tam in scripto quam in prolatione. Et secundum istum modum est talis oratio distinguenda `Deus facit frondes et folia invite', quia `invite' potest esse una dictio, scilicet adverbium, et tunc est falsa, quia significat quod Deus facit aliquid coacte; vel potest esse duae dictiones, scilicet haec praepositio `in' et ablativus casus huius nominis `vitis', et sic est vera.	The third way can deceive both in writing and in speech. And according to this way, such a sentence as `God makes branches and leaves by invitation' is to be distinguished, because `invite' can be a single word, namely an adverb, and then it is false, because it means that God does something forcibly; or it can be two expressions, namely this preposition 'in' and the ablative case of this noun 'vine', and so it is true.
Penes istam fallaciam non sunt magnae difficultates in scientiis particularibus, et ideo iam dicta de ista fallacia sufficiant.	Due to this fallacy there are no great difficulties in the particular sciences, and therefore what has already been said about these fallacies is sufficient.