the　word　that　is　pronounced；　according　to　its　breathing；　as　eros　and
  eros　is　a　case　of　double　meaning。　（In　writing；　indeed；　a　word　is　the
  same　whenever　it　is　written　of　the　same　letters　and　in　the　same
  manner…　and　even　there　people　nowadays　put　marks　at　the　side　to
  show　the　pronunciation…　but　the　spoken　words　are　not　the　same。）
  Accordingly　an　expression　that　depends　upon　division　is　not　an
  ambiguous　one。　It　is　evident　also　that　not　all　refutations　depend　upon
  ambiguity　as　some　people　say　they　do。
  The　answerer；　then；　must　divide　the　expression：　for
  'I…saw…a…man…being…beaten　with　my　eyes'　is　not　the　same　as　to　say　'I
  saw　a　man　being…beaten…with…my…eyes'。　Also　there　is　the　argument　of
  Euthydemus　proving　'Then　you　know　now　in　Sicily　that　there　are
  triremes　in　Piraeus'：　and　again；　'Can　a　good　man　who　is　a　cobbler　be
  bad？'　'No。'　'But　a　good　man　may　be　a　bad　cobbler：　therefore　a　good
  cobbler　will　be　bad。'　Again；　'Things　the　knowledge　of　which　is　good；
  are　good　things　to　learn；　aren't　they？'　'Yes。'　'The　knowledge；
  however；　of　evil　is　good：　therefore　evil　is　a　good　thing　to　know。'
  'Yes。　But；　you　see；　evil　is　both　evil　and　a　thing…to…learn；　so　that
  evil　is　an　evil…thing…to…learn；　although　the　knowledge　of　evils　is
  good。'　Again；　'Is　it　true　to　say　in　the　present　moment　that　you　are
  born？'　'Yes。'　'Then　you　are　born　in　the　present　moment。'　'No；　the
  expression　as　divided　has　a　different　meaning：　for　it　is　true　to
  say…in…the…present…moment　that　〃you　are　born〃；　but　not　〃You　are
  born…in…the…present…moment〃。'　Again；　'Could　you　do　what　you　can；　and
  as　you　can？'　'Yes。'　'But　when　not　harping；　you　have　the　power　to　harp：
  and　therefore　you　could　harp　when　not　harping。'　'No：　he　has　not　the
  power　to　harp…while…not…harping；　merely；　when　he　is　not　doing　it；　he
  has　the　power　to　do　it。'　Some　people　solve　this　last　refutation　in
  another　way　as　well。　For；　they　say；　if　he　has　granted　that　he　can　do
  anything　in　the　way　he　can；　still　it　does　not　follow　that　he　can
  harp　when　not　harping：　for　it　has　not　been　granted　that　he　will　do
  anything　in　every　way　in　which　he　can；　and　it　is　not　the　same　thing'
  to　do　a　thing　in　the　way　he　can'　and　'to　do　it　in　every　way　in　which
  he　can'。　But　evidently　they　do　not　solve　it　properly：　for　of　arguments
  that　depend　upon　the　same　point　the　solution　is　the　same；　whereas　this
  will　not　fit　all　cases　of　the　kind　nor　yet　all　ways　of　putting　the
  questions：　it　is　valid　against　the　questioner；　but　not　against　his
  argument。
  21
  Accentuation　gives　rise　to　no　fallacious　arguments；　either　as
  written　or　as　spoken；　except　perhaps　some　few　that　might　be　made　up；
  e。g。　the　following　argument。　'Is　ou　katalueis　a　house？'　'Yes。'　'Is
  then　ou　katalueis　the　negation　of　katalueis？'　'Yes。'　'But　you
  said　that　ou　katalueis　is　a　house：　therefore　the　house　is　a
  negation。'　How　one　should　solve　this；　is　clear：　for　the　word　does
  not　mean　the　same　when　spoken　with　an　acuter　and　when　spoken　with　a
  graver　accent。
  22
  It　is　clear　also　how　one　must　meet　those　fallacies　that　depend　on
  the　identical　expressions　of　things　that　are　not　identical；　seeing
  that　we　are　in　possession　of　the　kinds　of　predications。　For　the　one
  man；　say；　has　granted；　when　asked；　that　a　term　denoting　a　substance
  does　not　belong　as　an　attribute；　while　the　other　has　shown　that　some
  attribute　belongs　which　is　in　the　Category　of　Relation　or　of　Quantity；
  but　is　usually　thought　to　denote　a　substance　because　of　its
  expression；　e。g。　in　the　following　argument：　'Is　it　possible　to　be
  doing　and　to　have　done　the　same　thing　at　the　same　time？'　'No。'　'But；
  you　see；　it　is　surely　possible　to　be　seeing　and　to　have　seen　the
  same　thing　at　the　same　time；　and　in　the　same　aspect。'　Again；　'Is　any
  mode　of　passivity　a　mode　of　activity？'　'No。'　'Then　〃he　is　cut〃；　〃he　is
  burnt〃；　〃he　is　struck　by　some　sensible　object〃　are　alike　in　expression
  and　all　denote　some　form　of　passivity；　while　again　〃to　say〃；　〃to　run〃；
  〃to　see〃　are　like　one　like　one　another　in　expression：　but；　you　see；
  〃to　see〃　is　surely　a　form　of　being　struck　by　a　sensible　object；
  therefore　it　is　at　the　same　time　a　form　of　passivity　and　of　activity。'
  Suppose；　however；　that　in　that　case　any　one；　after　granting　that　it　is
  not　possible　to　do　and　to　have　done　the　same　thing　in　the　same　time；
  were　to　say　that　it　is　possible　to　see　and　to　have　seen　it；　still　he
  has　not　yet　been　refuted；　suppose　him　to　say　that　'to　see'　is　not　a
  form　of　'doing'　（activity）　but　of　'passivity'：　for　this　question　is
  required　as　well；　though　he　is　supposed　by　the　listener　to　have
  already　granted　it；　when　he　granted　that　'to　cut'　is　a　form　of
  present；　and　'to　have　cut'　a　form　of　past；　activity；　and　so　on　with
  the　other　things　that　have　a　like　expression。　For　the　listener　adds
  the　rest　by　himself；　thinking　the　meaning　to　be　alike：　whereas
  really　the　meaning　is　not　alike；　though　it　appears　to　be　so　because　of
  the　expression。　The　same　thing　happens　here　as　happens　in　cases　of
  ambiguity：　for　in　dealing　with　ambiguous　expressions　the　tyro　in
  argument　supposes　the　sophist　to　have　negated　the　fact　which　he　（the
  tyro）　affirmed；　and　not　merely　the　name：　whereas　there　still　wants　the
  question　whether　in　using　the　ambiguous　term　he　had　a　single　meaning
  in　view：　for　if　he　grants　that　that　was　so；　the　refutation　will　be
  effected。
  Like　the　above　are　also　the　following　arguments。　It　is　asked　if　a
  man　has　lost　what　he　once　had　and　afterwards　has　not：　for　a　man　will
  no　longer　have　ten　dice　even　though　he　has　only　lost　one　die。　No：
  rather　it　is　that　he　has　lost　what　he　had　before　and　has　not　now；
  but　there　is　no　necessity　for　him　to　have　lost　as　much　or　as　many
  things　as　he　has　not　now。　So　then；　he　asks　the　questions　as　to　what　he
  has；　and　draws　the　conclusion　as　to　the　whole　number　that　he　has：
  for　ten　is　a　number。　If　then　he　had　asked　to　begin　with；　whether　a　man
  no　longer　having　the　number　of　things　he　once　had　has　lost　the　whole
  number；　no　one　would　have　granted　it；　but　would　have　said　'Either
  the　whole　number　or　one　of　them'。　Also　there　is　the　argument　that　'a
  man　may　give　what　he　has　not　got'：　for　he　has　not　got　only　one　die。
  No：　rather　it　is　that　he　has　given　not　what　he　had　not　got；　but　in　a
  manner　in　which　he　had　not　got　it；　viz。　just　the　one。　For　the　word
  'only'　does　not　signify　a　particular　substance　or　quality　or　number；
  but　a　manner　relation；　e。g。　that　it　is　not　coupled　with　any　other。
  It　is　therefore　just　as　if　he　had　asked　'Could　a　man　give　what　he
  has　not　got？'　and；　on　being　given　the　answer　'No'；　were　to　ask　if　a
  man　could　give　a　thing　quickly　when　he　had　not　got　it　quickly；　and；　on
  this　being　granted；　were　to　conclude　that　'a　man　could　give　what　he
  had　not　got'。　It　is　quite　evident　that　he　has　not　proved　his　point：
  for　to　'give　quickly'　is　not　to　give　a　thing；　but　to　give　in　a　certain
  manner；　and　a　man　could　certainly　give　a　thing　in　a　manner　in　which　he
  has　not　got　it；　e。g。　he　might　have　got　it　with　pleasure　and　give　it
  with　pain。
  Like　these　are　also　all　arguments　of　the　following　kind：　'Could　a
  man　strike　a　blow　with　a　hand　which　he　has　not　got；　or　see　with　an　eye
  which　he　has　not　got？'　For　he　has　not　got　only　one　eye。　Some　people
  solve　this　case；　where　a　man　has　more　than　one　eye；　or　more　than　one
  of　anything　else；　by　saying　also　that　he　has　only　one。　Others　also
  solve　it　as　they　solve　the　refutation　of　the　view　that　'what　a　man
  has；　he　has　received'：　for　A　gave　only　one　vote；　and　certainly　B；　they
  say；　has　only　one　vote　from　A。　Others；　again；　proceed　by　demolishing
  straight　away　the　proposition　asked；　and　admitting　that　it　is　quite
  possible　to　have　what　one　has　not　received；　e。g。　to　have　received
  sweet　wine；　but　then；　owing　to　its　going　bad　in　the　course　of　receipt；
  to　have　it　sour。　But；　as　was　said　also　above；'　all　these　persons
  direct　their　solutions　against　the　man；　not　against　his　argument。
  For　if　this　were　a　genuine　solution；　then；　suppose　any　one　to　grant
  the　opposite；　he　could　find　no　solution；　just　as　happens　in　other
  cases；　e。g。　suppose　the　true　solution　to　be　'So…and…so　is　partly
  true　and　partly　not'；　then；　if　the　answerer　grants　the　expression
  without　any　qualification；　the　sophist's　conclusion　follows。　If；　on
  the　other　hand；　the　conclusion　does　not　follow；　then　that　could　not　be
  the　true　solution：　and　what　we　say　in　regard　to　the　foregoing　examples
  is　that；　even　if　all　the　sophist's　premisses　be　granted；　still　no
  proof　is　effected。
  Moreover；　the　following　too　belong　to　this　group　of　arguments。　'If
  something　be　in　writing　did　some　one　write　it？'　'Yes。'　'But　it　is
  now　in　writing　that　you　are　seated…a　false　statement；　though　it　was
  true　at　the