serve to establish the syllogism’s premises.”

They say:

“Sometimes they omit some of the syllogism’s premises, either relying on the mind to grasp them or seeking to pass off a fallacy, lest stating those premises explicitly expose their falsity.”

They say:

“If the syllogisms used to establish the premises have their conclusions expressly stated, the syllogism is called ‘separated’; otherwise, it is called ‘connected’.”

They illustrate the connected form with the statement:

“Every human being is an animal, every animal is a body, and every body is a substance. Therefore, every human being is a substance.”

They illustrate the separated form with the statement:

“Every human being is an animal, and every animal is a body. Therefore, every human being is a body.” Then one says: “Every animal is a body, and every body is a substance. Therefore, every human being is an animal.” From these two it follows that every human being is a substance.

The reply to them is:

As for the desired conclusion having no more than two parts, that concerns its verbal formulation. In the mind, however, what is sought is only one thing, not two: whether the relation expressed in the judgment holds or does not hold.

Alternatively, one may describe it as the affirmation or denial of an attribute of its subject. Or one may speak of the relation of predicate to subject, or of grammatical predicate to grammatical subject, by way of denial or affirmation. These and similar expressions indicate the single meaning intended by the proposition.

Thus, if the conclusion is that nabīdh is forbidden or is not forbidden, or that a human being is capable of sensation or is not capable of sensation, and so forth, what is sought is to establish or deny that prohibition applies to nabīdh, and likewise to establish or deny that human beings possess sensation. If a single premise is relevant to that