Secondly, take "no x are y". Here WE only understand "are" to
mean "are, as an actual FACT"--which does not at all imply that no
x CAN be y. But THEY understand the Proposition to mean, not only
that none ARE y, but that none CAN POSSIBLY be y. So they mean
more than we do: their meaning includes ours (for of course "no x
CAN be y" includes "no x ARE y"), but ours does NOT include theirs.
For example, "no Policemen are eight feet high" would be TRUE
in our Game (since, as an actual fact, no such splendid specimens
are ever found), but it would be FALSE, according to these writers
(since the Attributes "belonging to the Police Force" and "eight
feet high" are quite COMPATIBLE: there is nothing to PREVENT a
Policeman from growing to that height, if sufficiently rubbed with
Rowland's Macassar Oil--which said to make HAIR grow, when rubbed
on hair, and so of course will make a POLICEMAN grow, when rubbed
on a Policeman).

Thirdly, take "all x are y", which consists of the two partial
Propositions "some x are y" and "no x are y'". Here, of course,
the treatises mean LESS than we do in the FIRST part, and more than
we do in the SECOND. But the two operations don't balance each
other--any more than you can console a man, for having knocked down
one of his chimneys, by giving him an extra door-step.

If you meet with Syllogisms of this kind, you may work them, quite
easily, by the system I have given you: you have only to make
'are' mean 'are CAPABLE of being', and all will go smoothly. For
"some x are y" will become "some x are capable of being y", that
is, "the Attributes x, y are COMPATIBLE". And "no x are y" will
become "no x are capable of being y", that is, "the Attributes