(28) Πάντα δὲ τὰ πρός τι πρὸς ἀντιστρέφοντα λέγεται,
οἷον (29) ὁ δοῦλος δεσπότου λέγεται δοῦλος καὶ ὁ δεσπότης δού(30)λου δεσπότης λέγεται,
καὶ τὸ διπλάσιον ἡμίσεος διπλάσιον (31) καὶ τὸ ἥμισυ διπλασίου ἥμισυ, καὶ τὸ μεῖζον ἐλάττονος μεῖζον (32) καὶ τὸ ἔλαττον μείζονος ἔλαττον·
ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν (33) ἄλλων·
πλὴν τῇ πτώσει ἐνίοτε διοίσει κατὰ τὴν λέξιν,
οἷον (34) ἡ ἐπιστήμη ἐπιστητοῦ λέγεται ἐπιστήμη καὶ τὸ ἐπιστητὸν (35) ἐπιστήμῃ ἐπιστητόν, καὶ ἡ αἴσθησις αἰσθητοῦ αἴσθησις καὶ (36) τὸ αἰσθητὸν αἰσθήσει αἰσθητόν.
οὐ μὴν ἀλλ’ ἐνίοτε οὐ δόξει (37) ἀντιστρέφειν,
ἐὰν μὴ οἰκείως πρὸς ὃ λέγεται ἀποδοθῇ (38) ἀλλὰ διαμάρτῃ ὁ ἀποδιδούς·
οἷον τὸ πτερὸν ἐὰν ἀποδοθῇ (39) ὄρνιθος, οὐκ ἀντιστρέφει ὄρνις πτεροῦ·
οὐ γὰρ οἰκείως τὸ (7a1) πρῶτον ἀποδέδοται πτερὸν ὄρνιθος,
—οὐ γὰρ ᾗ ὄρνις, ταύτῃ (2) τὸ πτερὸν αὐτῆς λέγεται, ἀλλ’ ᾗ πτερωτόν ἐστιν· πολλῶν (3) γὰρ καὶ ἄλλων πτερά ἐστιν ἃ οὐκ εἰσὶν ὄρνιθες·—
ὥστε ἐὰν (4) ἀποδοθῇ οἰκείως, καὶ ἀντιστρέφει,
οἷον τὸ πτερὸν πτερωτοῦ (5) πτερὸν καὶ τὸ πτερωτὸν πτερῷ πτερωτόν.
—ἐνίοτε δὲ καὶ ὀνο(6)ματοποιεῖν ἴσως ἀναγκαῖον,
ἐὰν μὴ κείμενον ᾖ ὄνομα πρὸς ὃ (7) οἰκείως ἂν ἀποδοθείη·
οἷον τὸ πηδάλιον πλοίου ἐὰν ἀπο(8)δοθῇ, οὐκ οἰκεία ἡ ἀπόδοσις,
—οὐ γὰρ ᾗ πλοῖον (9) ταύτῃ αὐτοῦ τὸ πηδάλιον λέγεται·
ἔστι γὰρ πλοῖα ὧν οὐκ (10) ἔστι πηδάλια·
— διὸ οὐκ ἀντιστρέφει· τὸ γὰρ πλοῖον οὐ λέγε(11)ται πηδαλίου πλοῖον.
ἀλλ’ ἴσως οἰκειοτέρα ἂν ἡ ἀπόδοσις (12) εἴη, εἰ οὕτω πως ἀποδοθείη τὸ πηδάλιον πηδαλιωτοῦ πηδά(13)λιον ἢ ὁπωσοῦν ἄλλως, —ὄνομα γὰρ οὐ κεῖται·
— καὶ ἀντι(14)στρέφει γε, ἐὰν οἰκείως ἀποδοθῇ· τὸ γὰρ πηδαλιωτὸν (15) πηδαλίῳ πηδαλιωτόν.
ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων, (16) οἷον ἡ κεφαλὴ οἰκειοτέρως ἂν ἀποδοθείη κεφαλωτοῦ ἢ ζῴου (17) ἀποδιδομένη·
οὐ γὰρ ᾗ ζῷον κεφαλὴν ἔχει· πολλὰ γὰρ (18) τῶν ζῴων κεφαλὴν οὐκ ἔχει.
οὕτω δὲ ῥᾷστα ἂν ἴσως τις (19) λαμβάνοι οἷς μὴ κεῖται ὀνόματα,
εἰ ἀπὸ τῶν πρώτων καὶ (20) τοῖς πρὸς αὐτὰ ἀντιστρέφουσι τιθείη τὰ ὀνόματα,
ὥσπερ (21) ἐπὶ τῶν προειρημένων ἀπὸ τοῦ πτεροῦ τὸ πτερωτὸν καὶ ἀπὸ (22) τοῦ πηδαλίου τὸ πηδαλιωτόν.
πάντα οὖν τὰ πρός τι, ἐάν(23)περ οἰκείως ἀποδιδῶται, πρὸς ἀντιστρέφοντα λέγεται·
ἐπεί, (24) ἐάν γε πρὸς τὸ τυχὸν ἀποδιδῶται καὶ μὴ πρὸς αὐτὸ ὃ (25) λέγεται, οὐκ ἀντιστρέφει.
—λέγω δὲ ὅτι οὐδὲ τῶν ὁμολο(26)γουμένως πρὸς ἀντιστρέφοντα λεγομένων καὶ ὀνομάτων αὐτοῖς (27) κειμένων οὐδὲν ἀντιστρέφει, ἐὰν πρός τι τῶν συμβεβηκότων (28) ἀποδιδῶται καὶ μὴ πρὸς αὐτὸ ὃ λέγεται·
οἷον ὁ δοῦλος (29) ἐὰν μὴ δεσπότου ἀποδοθῇ ἀλλ’ ἀνθρώπου ἢ δίποδος ἢ (30) ὁτουοῦν τῶν τοιούτων, οὐκ ἀντιστρέφει· οὐ γὰρ οἰκεία (31) ἡ ἀπόδοσις.
(26) Omnia autem relatiua ad conuertentia dicuntur,
ut seruus domini seruus (27) dicitur et dominus serui dominus,
et duplum dimidii duplum et (28) dimidium dupli dimidium, et maius minore maius et minus maiore minus;
(29) similiter autem et in aliis;
sed casu aliquotiens differt secundum (30) locutionem,
ut scientia scibilis rei dicitur scientia et scibile (31) scientia scibile, et sensus sensibilis sensus et sensibile sensu (32) sensibile.
At uero aliquotiens non uidebitur conuertere
nisi (33) conuenienter ad quod dicitur assignetur sed peccet is qui assignat;
ut (34) ala si assignetur auis, non conuertitur ut sit auis alae;
neque enim (35) conuenienter prius assignatum est ala auis;
neque enim in eo quod (36) auis, in eo eius ala dicitur sed in eo quod alata est (multorum enim (37) et aliorum alae sunt, quae non sunt aues);
quare si assignetur (38) conuenienter, et conuertitur;
ut ala alati ala, et alatum ala (39) alatum.
Aliquotiens autem forte et nomina fingere necesse erit,
si non (40) fuerit positum nomen ad quod conuenienter assignetur;
ut remus nauis (41) si assignetur, non erit conueniens assignatio
(neque enim in eo quod (42) est nauis, in eo eius remus dicitur;
sunt enim naues quarum remi non (43) sunt);
quare non conuertitur; nauis enim non dicitur remi.
Sed forte (44) conuenientior assignatio erit si sic quodam modo assignetur, remus (45) remitae remus, uel aliquo modo aliter dictum sit (nomen enim non est (46) positum);
conuertitur autem si conuenienter assignetur (remitum enim (47) remo remitum est).
Similiter autem et in aliis, ut caput conuenientius (48) assignabitur capitati quam si animalis assignetur;
neque enim in eo (49) quod animal est caput habet (multa enim sunt animalium capita non (50) habentia).
Sic autem facilius fortasse sumetur quibus nomen non est (51) positum,
si ab his quae prima sunt et [ab] his ad quae conuertuntur (52) nomina ponuntur,
ut in his quae praedicta sunt ab ala alatum, a remo (53) remitum.
Omnia ergo quae ad aliquid dicuntur, si conuenienter (54) assignentur, ad conuertentia dicuntur.
Nam, si ad quodlibet aliud (55) assignentur et non ad illud dicantur, non conuertuntur.
Dico autem (56) quoniam neque in his quae confesse conuersim dicuntur et in quibus (57) nomen est positum, nihil conuertitur, si ad aliquid eorum quae sunt (58) accidentia assignetur et non ad illud dicatur;
ut seruus si non domini (59) assignetur sed hominis uel bipedis uel alicuius talium, non (60) conuertitur (non enim erit conueniens assignatio).
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
All relatives have correlatives:
by the term ’slave’ we mean the slave of a master, by the term ’master’, the master of a slave;
by ’double’, the double of its hall; by ’half’, the half of its double; by greater’, greater than that which is less; by ’less,’ less than that which is greater.
So it is with every other relative term;
but the case we use to express the correlation differs in some instances.
Thus, by knowledge we mean knowledge the knowable; by the knowable, that which is to be apprehended by knowledge; by perception, perception of the perceptible; by the perceptible, that which is apprehended by perception.
Sometimes, however, reciprocity of correlation does not appear to exist.
This comes about when a blunder is made, and that to which the relative is related is not accurately stated.
If a man states that a wing is necessarily relative to a bird, the connexion between these two will not be reciprocal,
for it will not be possible to say that a bird is a bird by reason of its wings.
The reason is that the original statement was inaccurate, for the wing is not said to be relative to the bird qua bird, since many creatures besides birds have wings, but qua winged creature.
If, then, the statement is made accurate, the connexion will be reciprocal,
for we can speak of a wing, having reference necessarily to a winged creature, and of a winged creature as being such because of its wings.
Occasionally, perhaps, it is necessary to coin words,
if no word exists by which a correlation can adequately be explained.
If we define a rudder as necessarily having reference to a boat, our definition will not be appropriate,
for the rudder does not have this reference to a boat qua boat,
as there are boats which have no rudders.
Thus we cannot use the terms reciprocally, for the word ’boat’ cannot be said to find its explanation in the word ’rudder’.
As there is no existing word, our definition would perhaps be more accurate if we coined some word like ’ruddered’ as the correlative of ’rudder’.
If we express ourselves thus accurately, at any rate the terms are reciprocally connected, for the ’ruddered’ thing is ’ruddered’ in virtue of its rudder.
So it is in all other cases. A head will be more accurately defined as the correlative of that which is ’headed’, than as that of an animal,
for the animal does not have a head qua animal, since many animals have no head.
Thus we may perhaps most easily comprehend that to which a thing is related, when a name does not exist,
if, from that which has a name, we derive a new name, and apply it to that with which the first is reciprocally connected,
as in the aforesaid instances, when we derived the word ’winged’ from ’wing’ and from ’rudder’.
All relatives, then, if properly defined, have a correlative.
I add this condition because, if that to which they are related is stated as haphazard and not accurately, the two are not found to be interdependent.
Let me state what I mean more clearly. Even in the case of acknowledged correlatives, and where names exist for each, there will be no interdependence if one of the two is denoted, not by that name which expresses the correlative notion, but by one of irrelevant significance.
The term ’slave,’ if defined as related, not to a master, but to a man, or a biped, or anything of that sort, is not reciprocally connected with that in relation to which it is defined, for the statement is not exact.
Complete text