Amphiboly and ambiguity, then, depend on these modes of speech.Upon the combination of words there depend instances such as the following:
'A man can walk while sitting, and can write while not writing'.For the meaning is not the same if one divides the words and if one combines them in saying that 'it is possible to walk-while-sitting'
and write while not writing].The same applies to the latter phrase, too, if one combines the words 'to write-while-not-writing': for then it means that he has the power to write and not to write at once;whereas if one does not combine them, it means that when he is not writing he has the power to write.Also, 'He now if he has learnt his letters'.Moreover, there is the saying that 'One single thing if you can carry a crowd you can carry too'.
Upon division depend the propositions that 5 is 2 and 3, and odd, and that the greater is equal: for it is that amount and more besides.
For the same phrase would not be thought always to have the same meaning when divided and when combined, e.g.'I made thee a slave once a free man', and 'God-like Achilles left fifty a hundred men'.
An argument depending upon accent it is not easy to construct in unwritten discussion; in written discussions and in poetry it is easier.Thus (e.g.) some people emend Homer against those who criticize as unnatural his expression to men ou kataputhetai ombro.For they solve the difficulty by a change of accent, pronouncing the ou with an acuter accent.Also, in the passage about Agamemnon's dream, they say that Zeus did not himself say 'We grant him the fulfilment of his prayer', but that he bade the dream grant it.Instances such as these, then, turn upon the accentuation.
Others come about owing to the form of expression used, when what is really different is expressed in the same form, e.g.a masculine thing by a feminine termination, or a feminine thing by a masculine, or a neuter by either a masculine or a feminine; or, again, when a quality is expressed by a termination proper to quantity or vice versa, or what is active by a passive word, or a state by an active word, and so forth with the other divisions previously' laid down.For it is possible to use an expression to denote what does not belong to the class of actions at all as though it did so belong.Thus (e.g.)'flourishing' is a word which in the form of its expression is like 'cutting' or 'building': yet the one denotes a certain quality-i.e.
a certain condition-while the other denotes a certain action.In the same manner also in the other instances.
Refutations, then, that depend upon language are drawn from these common-place rules.Of fallacies, on the other hand, that are independent of language there are seven kinds:
(1) that which depends upon Accident:
(2) the use of an expression absolutely or not absolutely but with some qualification of respect or place, or time, or relation:
(3) that which depends upon ignorance of what 'refutation' is:
(4) that which depends upon the consequent:
(5) that which depends upon assuming the original conclusion:
(6) stating as cause what is not the cause:
(7) the making of more than one question into one.
