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.