I have not (yet) studied Ancient Greek. This comment introduced me to the pertinence of Aristotle's Prior Analytics, but the translation and commentary below do not answer question entitled above.
Source: Aristotle's Prior Analytics: Book I, Translated with an introduction and commentary (2009) by Gisela Striker
[page 5, Chapter 4, 26a, Lines 22-23]
(I call 'major' the extreme that contains the middle and 'minor' the one that is under the middle.)
[page 97] 26a21-23 '"major" . . . "minor"'. The labels 'major' and 'minor' presumably derive from a syllogism in Barbara with true premis ses, though this time Aristotle says that the minor is 'under' the middle because the second premiss is particular, so that the minor term need not be included in the middle (for similar uses of 'under' , cf. 9, 30a40; I I , 3 P30, b 1 7) . According to the tradition, the major and the minor are the predicate and the subject term of the conclusion. However, this holds only so long as one considers only conclusions with a specific order of terms. Since Aristotle defined the figures only by reference to their premisses , he determines the major and the minor in the second and third figure by their position in the standard formulation of the premisses (see [page] 5, 26b37-8; [page] 6, 28a13-14). Used in this way, the labels have no longer anything to do with the extensions of the respective terms.