now　in　writing　that　you　are　seated…a　false　statement；　though　it　was
  true　at　the　time　when　it　was　written：　therefore　the　statement　that　was
  written　is　at　the　same　time　false　and　true。'　But　this　is　fallacious；
  for　the　falsity　or　truth　of　a　statement　or　opinion　indicates　not　a
  substance　but　a　quality：　for　the　same　account　applies　to　the　case　of
  an　opinion　as　well。　Again；　'Is　what　a　learner　learns　what　he
  learns？'　'Yes。'　'But　suppose　some　one　learns　〃slow〃　quick'。　Then　his
  （the　sophist's）　words　denote　not　what　the　learner　learns　but　how　he
  learns　it。　Also；　'Does　a　man　tread　upon　what　he　walks　through？
  'Yes。'　'But　X　walks　through　a　whole　day。'　No；　rather　the　words
  denote　not　what　he　walks　through；　but　when　he　walks；　just　as　when
  any　one　uses　the　words　'to　drink　the　cup'　he　denotes　not　what　he
  drinks；　but　the　vessel　out　of　which　he　drinks。　Also；　'Is　it　either
  by　learning　or　by　discovery　that　a　man　knows　what　he　knows？'　'Yes。'
  'But　suppose　that　of　a　pair　of　things　he　has　discovered　one　and
  learned　the　other；　the　pair　is　not　known　to　him　by　either　method。'　No：
  'what'　he　knows；　means'　every　single　thing'　he　knows；　individually；
  but　this　does　not　mean　'all　the　things'　he　knows；　collectively。　Again；
  there　is　the　proof　that　there　is　a　'third　man'　distinct　from　Man　and
  from　individual　men。　But　that　is　a　fallacy；　for　'Man'；　and　indeed
  every　general　predicate；　denotes　not　an　individual　substance；　but　a
  particular　quality；　or　the　being　related　to　something　in　a
  particular　manner；　or　something　of　that　sort。　Likewise　also　in　the
  case　of　'Coriscus'　and　'Coriscus　the　musician'　there　is　the　problem；
  Are　they　the　same　or　different？'　For　the　one　denotes　an　individual
  substance　and　the　other　a　quality；　so　that　it　cannot　be　isolated；
  though　it　is　not　the　isolation　which　creates　the　'third　man'；　but
  the　admission　that　it　is　an　individual　substance。　For　'Man'　cannot
  be　an　individual　substance；　as　Callias　is。　Nor　is　the　case　improved
  one　whit　even　if　one　were　to　call　the　clement　he　has　isolated　not　an
  individual　substance　but　a　quality：　for　there　will　still　be　the　one
  beside　the　many；　just　as　'Man'　was。　It　is　evident　then　that　one　must
  not　grant　that　what　is　a　common　predicate　applying　to　a　class
  universally　is　an　individual　substance；　but　must　say　that　denotes
  either　a　quality；　or　a　relation；　or　a　quantity；　or　something　of　that
  kind。
  23
  It　is　a　general　rule　in　dealing　with　arguments　that　depend　on
  language　that　the　solution　always　follows　the　opposite　of　the　point　on
  which　the　argument　turns：　e。g。　if　the　argument　depends　upon
  combination；　then　the　solution　consists　in　division；　if　upon　division；
  then　in　combination。　Again；　if　it　depends　on　an　acute　accent；　the
  solution　is　a　grave　accent；　if　on　a　grave　accent；　it　is　an　acute。　If
  it　depends　on　ambiguity；　one　can　solve　it　by　using　the　opposite
  term；　e。g。　if　you　find　yourself　calling　something　inanimate；　despite
  your　previous　denial　that　it　was　so；　show　in　what　sense　it　is　alive：
  if；　on　the　other　hand；　one　has　declared　it　to　be　inanimate　and　the
  sophist　has　proved　it　to　be　animate；　say　how　it　is　inanimate。　Likewise
  also　in　a　case　of　amphiboly。　If　the　argument　depends　on　likeness　of
  expression；　the　opposite　will　be　the　solution。　'Could　a　man　give
  what　he　has　not　got？　'No；　not　what　he　has　not　got；　but　he　could　give
  it　in　a　way　in　which　he　has　not　got　it；　e。g。　one　die　by　itself。'
  Does　a　man　know　either　by　learning　or　by　discovery　each　thing　that
  he　knows；　singly？　but　not　the　things　that　he　knows；　collectively。'
  Also　a　man　treads；　perhaps；　on　any　thing　he　walks　through；　but　not
  on　the　time　he　walks　through。　Likewise　also　in　the　case　of　the　other
  examples。
  24
  In　dealing　with　arguments　that　depend　on　Accident；　one　and　the
  same　solution　meets　all　cases。　For　since　it　is　indeterminate　when　an
  attribute　should　be　ascribed　to　a　thing；　in　cases　where　it　belongs
  to　the　accident　of　the　thing；　and　since　in　some　cases　it　is
  generally　agreed　and　people　admit　that　it　belongs；　while　in　others
  they　deny　that　it　need　belong；　we　should　therefore；　as　soon　as　the
  conclusion　has　been　drawn；　say　in　answer　to　them　all　alike；　that　there
  is　no　need　for　such　an　attribute　to　belong。　One　must；　however；　be
  prepared　to　adduce　an　example　of　the　kind　of　attribute　meant。　All
  arguments　such　as　the　following　depend　upon　Accident。　'Do　you　know
  what　I　am　going　to　ask　you？　you　know　the　man　who　is　approaching'；　or
  'the　man　in　the　mask'？　'Is　the　statue　your　work　of　art？'　or　'Is　the
  dog　your　father？'　'Is　the　product　of　a　small　number　with　a　small
  number　a　small　number？'　For　it　is　evident　in　all　these　cases　that
  there　is　no　necessity　for　the　attribute　which　is　true　of　the　thing's
  accident　to　be　true　of　the　thing　as　well。　For　only　to　things　that
  are　indistinguishable　and　one　in　essence　is　it　generally　agreed　that
  all　the　same　attributes　belong；　whereas　in　the　case　of　a　good　thing；
  to　be　good　is　not　the　same　as　to　be　going　to　be　the　subject　of　a
  question；　nor　in　the　case　of　a　man　approaching；　or　wearing　a　mask；
  is　'to　be　approaching'　the　same　thing　as　'to　be　Coriscus'；　so　that
  suppose　I　know　Coriscus；　but　do　not　know　the　man　who　is　approaching；
  it　still　isn't　the　case　that　I　both　know　and　do　not　know　the　same　man；
  nor；　again；　if　this　is　mine　and　is　also　a　work　of　art；　is　it　therefore
  my　work　of　art；　but　my　property　or　thing　or　something　else。　（The
  solution　is　after　the　same　manner　in　the　other　cases　as　well。）
  Some　solve　these　refutations　by　demolishing　the　original　proposition
  asked：　for　they　say　that　it　is　possible　to　know　and　not　to　know　the
  same　thing；　only　not　in　the　same　respect：　accordingly；　when　they　don't
  know　the　man　who　is　coming　towards　them；　but　do　know　Corsicus；　they
  assert　that　they　do　know　and　don't　know　the　same　object；　but　not　in
  the　same　respect。　Yet；　as　we　have　already　remarked；　the　correction
  of　arguments　that　depend　upon　the　same　point　ought　to　be　the　same；
  whereas　this　one　will　not　stand　if　one　adopts　the　same　principle　in
  regard　not　to　knowing　something；　but　to　being；　or　to　being　is　a　in　a
  certain　state；　e。g。　suppose　that　X　is　father；　and　is　also　yours：　for
  if　in　some　cases　this　is　true　and　it　is　possible　to　know　and　not　to
  know　the　same　thing；　yet　with　that　case　the　solution　stated　has
  nothing　to　do。　Certainly　there　is　nothing　to　prevent　the　same　argument
  from　having　a　number　of　flaws；　but　it　is　not　the　exposition　of　any　and
  every　fault　that　constitutes　a　solution：　for　it　is　possible　for　a
  man　to　show　that　a　false　conclusion　has　been　proved；　but　not　to　show
  on　what　it　depends；　e。g。　in　the　case　of　Zeno's　argument　to　prove
  that　motion　is　impossible。　So　that　even　if　any　one　were　to　try　to
  establish　that　this　doctrine　is　an　impossible　one；　he　still　is
  mistaken；　and　even　if　he　proved　his　case　ten　thousand　times　over；
  still　this　is　no　solution　of　Zeno's　argument：　for　the　solution　was　all
  along　an　exposition　of　false　reasoning；　showing　on　what　its　falsity
  depends。　If　then　he　has　not　proved　his　case；　or　is　trying　to　establish
  even　a　true　proposition；　or　a　false　one；　in　a　false　manner；　to　point
  this　out　is　a　true　solution。　Possibly；　indeed；　the　present
  suggestion　may　very　well　apply　in　some　cases：　but　in　these　cases；　at
  any　rate；　not　even　this　would　be　generally　agreed：　for　he　knows　both
  that　Coriscus　is　Coriscus　and　that　the　approaching　figure　is
  approaching。　To　know　and　not　to　know　the　same　thing　is　generally
  thought　to　be　possible；　when　e。g。　one　knows　that　X　is　white；　but
  does　not　realize　that　he　is　musical：　for　in　that　way　he　does　know
  and　not　know　the　same　thing；　though　not　in　the　same　respect。　But　as　to
  the　approaching　figure　and　Coriscus　he　knows　both　that　it　is
  approaching　and　that　he　is　Coriscus。
  A　like　mistake　to　that　of　those　whom　we　have　mentioned　is　that　of
  those　who　solve　the　proof　that　every　number　is　a　small　number：　for　if；
  when　the　conclusion　is　not　proved；　they　pass　this　over　and　say　that
  a　conclusion　has　been　proved　and　is　true；　on　the　ground　that　every
  number　is　both　great　and　small；　they　make　a　mistake。
  Some　people　also　use　the　principle　of　ambiguity　to　solve　the
  aforesaid　reasonings；　e。g。　the　proof　that　'X　is　your　father'；　or
  'son'；　or　'slave'。　Yet　it　is　evident　that　if　the　appearance　a　proof
  depends　upon　a　plurality　of　meanings；　the　term；　or　the　expression　in
  question；　ought　to　bear　a　number　of　literal　senses；　whereas　no　one
  speaks　of　A　as　being　'B's　child'　in　the　literal　sense；　if　B　is　the
  child's　master；　but　the　combination　depends　upon　Accident。　'Is　A
  yours？'　'Yes。'　'And　is　A　a　child？'　'Yes。'　'Then　the　child　A　is　yours；'
  because　he　happens　to　be　both　yours　and　a　child；　but　he　is　no