亚里士多德解释编—-词语与诸命题的关系

An  affirmation  is the  statement of a fact with regard  to a subject, and  this

subject is either a noun or that which has no name; the subject and predicate

in an  affirmation must eac h  denote  a  single  thing.  I  have already explained’

what is meant by a noun and by that which has no name; for I stated that the

expression ’not-man’ was not a noun, in the proper sense of the word, but an

indefinite noun, denoting as it does in a certain sense a single thing. Similarly

the expression ’does not  enjoy health’ is  not  a  verb  proper,  but an  indefinite

verb.  Every  affirmation,  then,  and  every  denial, will  consist of a  noun and  a

verb, either definite or indefinite.

There can be no affirmation or denial without a verb; for the express ions ’is’,

’will  be’,  ’was’,  ’is  coming  to  be’,  and  the  like  are  verbs  ac cording  to  our

definition, since besides their specific meaning they convey the notion of time.

Thus the primary affirmation and denial are ’as follows: ’man is’, ’man is not’.

Next to these, there are the propositions: ’not-man is’, ’not-man is not’. Again

we have the propositions: ’every man is, ’every man is not’, ’all that is not-man

is’, ’all that is not-man is not’. The same class ification holds good with regard

to such periods of time as lie outside the present.

When the verb ’is’ is used as a third element in the sentenc e, there c an be

positive and  negative propositions of two sorts. Thus in the sentence ’man is

just’ the verb ’is’ is used as a third element, call it verb or noun, which you will.

Four  propositions,  therefore,  instead  of  two  can  be  formed  with  these

materials. Two of the four, as regards their affirmation and denial, correspond

in their  logical sequence with the propositions  which deal  with  a c ondition of

privation; the other two do not correspond with these.

I  mean  that  the  verb  ’is’  is  added  either  to  the  term  ’just’  or  to  the  term

’not-just’,  and  two  negative propositions  are formed  in  the  same  way. Thus

we  have  the  four  propositions.  Reference  to  the  s ubjoined  table  will  make

matters clear:

A. Affirmation         B. Denial

Man is just        Man is not just

\     /

X

/     \

D. Denial              C. Affirmation

Man is not not-just      Man is not-just

Here ’is’ and ’is not’ are added either to ’just’ or to ’not-just’. This then is the

proper scheme for these propositions, as has been said in the Analytics. The

same rule holds good, if the subject is distributed. Thus we have the table:

A’. Affirmation                B’. Denial

Every man is just            Not every man is just

\    /

X

D’. Denial        /     \     C’. Affirmation

Not every man is  not-just         Every man is not-just

Yet here it is not  possible, in the same way as in the former case, that the

propositions joined in the table by a diagonal line should both be true; though

under certain circumstances this is the case.

We  have  thus  set  out  two  pairs  of  opposite  propositions;  there  are

moreover  two  other  pairs,  if  a  term  be  conjoined  with  ’not-man’,  the  latter

forming a k ind of subject. Thus:

A."                           B."

Not-man is just                Not-man is not just

\    /

X

D."           /    \          C."

Not-man is not not-just        Not-man is not-just