hich can _logically_ be held, viz.

_I_ and _A_ "assert", but _E_ does not.
_E_ and _A_ "assert", but _I_ does not.

The _second_ of these I have shown to involve great practical
inconvenience.

The _first_ is the one adopted in this book. (See p. 19.)

Some further remarks on this subject will be found in Note (B), at p.
196.

Sec. 3.

_The use of "is-not" (or "are-not") as a Copula._

Is it better to say "John _is-not_ in-the-house" or "John _is_
not-in-the-house"? "Some of my acquaintances _are-not_
men-I-should-like-to-be-seen-with" or "Some of my acquaintances _are_
men-I-should-_not_-like-to-be-seen-with"? That is the sort of question
we have now to discuss.
pg172
This is no question of Logical Right and Wrong: it is merely a matter of
_taste_, since the two forms mean exactly the same thing. And here,
again, "The Logicians" seem to me to take much too humble a position.
When they are putting the final touches to the grouping of their
Proposition, just before the curtain goes up, and when the
Copula----always a rather fussy 'heavy father', asks them "Am _I_ to
have the 'not', or will you tack it on to the Predicate?" they are much
too ready to answer, like the subtle cab-driver, "Leave it to _you_,
Sir!" The result seems to be, that the grasping Copula constantly gets a
"not" that had better have been merged in the Predicate, and that
Propositions are differentiated which had better have been recognised as
precisely similar. Surely it is simpler to treat "Some men are Jews" and
"Some men are Gentiles" as being both of them, _affirmative_
Propositions, instead of translating the latter into "Some men are-not
Jews", and regarding it as a _negative_ Propositions?

The fact is, "The Logicians" have somehow acquired a perfectly _morbid_
dread of negative Attributes, which makes them shut their eyes, like
frightened children, when they come across such terrible Propositions as
"All not-x are y"; and thus they exclude from their system many very
useful forms of Syllogisms.

Under the influence of this unreasoning terror, they plead that, in
Dichotomy by Contradiction, the _negative_ part is too large to deal
with, so that it is better to regard each Thing as either included in,
or excluded from, the _positive_ part. I see no force in this plea: and
the facts often go the other way. As a personal question, dear Reader,
if _you_ wer