efore
see?_ The Ambiguity lies again in [Greek: touto], as we shew'd before.
But these Sentences may be render'd into _Latin_ well enough; but that
which follows cannot possibly by any Means be render'd, [Greek: Ara ho
sy phes einai, touto sy phes einai; phes de lithon einai sy ara phes
lithos einai]. Which they thus render, _putas quod tu dicis esse, hoc tu
dicis esse: dicis autem lapidem esse, tu ergo lapis dicis esse._ Pray
tell me what Sense can be made of these Words? For the Ambiguity lies
partly in the Idiom of the _Greek_ Phrase, which is in the major and
minor. Although in the major there is another Ambiguity in the two Words
[Greek: o] and [Greek: touto], which if they be taken in the nominative
Case, the Sense will be, _That which thou sayest thou art, that thou
art._ But if in the accusative Case the Sense will be, _Whatsoever thou
sayst is, that thou sayst is;_ and to this Sense he subjoins [Greek:
lithon phes einai], but to the former Sense he subjoins [Greek: sy ara
phes lithos einai]. _Catullus_ once attempted to imitate the Propriety
of the _Greek_ Tongue:

_Phaselus iste, quem videtis, hospites,
Ait fuisse navium celerrimus.

My Guests, that Gally which you see
The most swift of the Navy is, says he._

For so was this Verse in the old Edition. Those who write Commentaries
on these Places being ignorant of this, must of Necessity err many Ways.
Neither indeed can that which immediately follows be perspicuous in the
_Latin_. [Greek: Kai ara eoti sigonta legein; ditton gar esti to sigonta
legein, to te ton legonta sigan, kai to ta legomena.] That they have
render'd thus; _Et putas, est tacentem dicere? Duplex enim est, tacentem
dicere; et hunc dicere tacentem, et quae dicuntur._ Are not these Words
more obscure than the Books of the _Sibyls_?

_Hi._ I am not satisfy'd with the _Greek_.

_Le._ I'll interpret it as well as I can. _Is it possible for a Man to
speak while he is silent?_ This Interrogation has a two-Fold Sense, the
one of which is false and absurd, and the other may be true; for it
cannot possibly be that he who speaks, should not speak what he does
speak; that is that he should be silent while he is speaking; but it is
possible, that he who speaks may be silent of him who speaks. Although
this Example falls into another Form that he adds a little after. And
again, I admire, that a little after, in that kind of Ambiguity that
arises from more Words conjoin'd, the