§92. _Nata sit_: cf. 28, 59. _Loquendi_: the Stoic λογικη, it must be remembered, included ‛ρητορικη. _Concludendi_: του συμπεραινειν or συλλογιζεσθαι. _Locum_: τοπον in the philosophical sense. _Vitiosum_: 49, n. _Num nostra culpa est_: cf. 32. _Finium_: absolute limits; the fallacy of the _sorites_ and other such sophisms lies entirely in the treatment of purely _relative_ terms as though they were _absolute_. _Quatenus_: the same ellipse occurs in _Orator_ 73. _In acervo tritici_: this is the false _sorites_, which may be briefly described thus: A asks B whether one grain makes a heap, B answers "No." A goes on asking whether two, three, four, etc. grains make a heap. B cannot always reply "No." When he begins to answer "Yes," there will be a difference of one grain between heap and no heap. One grain therefore _does_ make a heap. The true _sorites_ or chain inference is still treated in books on logic, cf. Thomson's _Laws of Thought_, pp 201--203, ed 8. _Minutatim_: cf. Heindorf's note on κατα σμικρον in _Sophistes_ 217 D. _Interrogati_: cf. 104. In 94 we have _interroganti_, which some edd. read here. _Dives pauper_, etc.: it will be easily seen that the process of questioning above described can be applied to any relative term such as these are. For the omission of any connecting particle between the members of each pair, cf. 29, 125, _T.D._ I. 64, V. 73, 114, Zumpt _Gram._ 782. _Quanto addito aut dempto_: after this there is a strange ellipse of some such words as _id efficiatur, quod interrogatur_. [_Non_] _habemus_: I bracket _non_ in deference to Halm, Madv. however (_Opusc._ I. 508) treats it as a superabundance of negation arising from a sort of anacoluthon, comparing _In Vatin._ 3, _Ad Fam._ XII. 24. The scribes insert and omit negatives very recklessly, so that the point may remain doubtful.