though all irrelevant attributes of the said 'master', such as
'biped', 'receptive of knowledge', 'human', should be removed,
and the attribute 'master' alone left, the stated correlation
existing between him and the slave will remain the same, for it
is of a master that a slave is said to be the slave. On the other
hand, if, of two correlatives, one is not correctly termed, then,
when all other attributes are removed and that alone is left in
virtue of which it was stated to be correlative, the stated
correlation will be found to have disappeared.

For suppose the correlative of 'the slave' should be said to be
'the man', or the correlative of 'the wing"the bird'; if the
attribute 'master' be withdrawn from' the man', the correlation
between 'the man' and 'the slave' will cease to exist, for if the
man is not a master, the slave is not a slave. Similarly, if the
attribute 'winged' be withdrawn from 'the bird', 'the wing' will
no longer be relative; for if the so-called correlative is not
winged, it follows that 'the wing' has no correlative.

Thus it is essential that the correlated terms should be exactly
designated; if there is a name existing, the statement will be
easy; if not, it is doubtless our duty to construct names. When
the terminology is thus correct, it is evident that all
correlatives are interdependent.

Correlatives are thought to come into existence simultaneously.
This is for the most part true, as in the case of the double and
the half. The existence of the half necessitates the existence of
that of which it is a half. Similarly the existence of a master
necessitates the existence of a slave, and that of a slave