In her emendation of her earlier work on antilogism here, Christine Ladd-Franklin wrote
... That no human beings are immortal and no angels are mortal precludes any angels being human.
[She then presents the syllogism in symbolic form]
The formula says "precludes that any angels (some angels) are human" but rhetoric has a strong penchant for turning the verb of a subordinate proposition into a verbal noun.
Is her point that the verbal (being) implies more existential import than the pure copula as a verb (is/are), or am I missing something?