Hello.

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


There is wind where the rose was,
Cold rain where sweet grass was,
And clouds like sheep
Stream o'er the steep
Grey skies where the lark was.

Nought warm where your hand was,
Nought gold where your hair was,
But phantom, forlorn,
Beneath the thorn,
Your ghost where your face was.

Cold wind where your voice was,
Tears, tears where my heart was,
And ever with me,
Child, ever with me,
Silence where hope was.

November by Walter de la Mare
Don't forget to check the calendar(s) for session times. Sessions are held on different platforms, so be sure to find out where the session will take place:-

Speaking Practice

LEN English sessions:-
http://www.learnenglish.de/calendar/learnenglishcalendar.html

Listening Practice 24/7

English radio playlists:-
http://www.englishradio.be/musicevents/calendar.html

Voltaire and fire

XanthippeXanthippe Posts: 1,776 ✭✭✭✭✭
edited November 2016 in Your Writing
@Lynne, @mheredge,

Could you help me, please? This is my translation (I am afraid I killed Voltaire's sophisticated syntax):


I was at an iron forge on purpose and there, I had all the scales discarded and others delivered. All the iron scales were fitted with iron chains instead of ropes. Thereafter, I had both the heated and the cooled metal in the range from one pound to two thousand pounds weighed. Since I never found the smallest difference in their weights I reasoned as follows: The surface of these enormous masses of heated iron had been enlarged due to their dilation, therefore they must have had less specific gravity. So I can conclude - even from the fact that their weight stays the same irrespective of whether they are hot or cool - that fire that penetrated them added precisely as much weight as dilation made them lose, and consequently, fire has real weight.

https://books.google.pl/books?id=xA02AQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=pl#v=onepage&q&f=false

J'ai été exprès à une Forge de Fer, et là, ayant fait réformer toutes les balances, et en ayant fait porter d'autres, toutes les balances de Fer ayant des chaînes de Fer au lieu de cordes, j'ai fait peser depuis une livre, jusqu'à deux mille livres de métal ardent et refroidi, et n'ayant jamais trouvé la moindre différence dans le poids, voici comme je raisonnois. Ces masses énormes de Fer ardent avoient acquis par leur dilatation une plus grande surface, elles devoient donc avoir alors moins de pesanteur spécifique. Je puis donc, de cela même qu'elles pesent également chaudes et froides, conclurre que le feu qui les pénétroit, leur donnoit précisément autant de poids que leur dilatation leur en faisoit perdre, et que par conséquent le Feu est réellement pesant.

Comments

  • XanthippeXanthippe Posts: 1,776 ✭✭✭✭✭
    The next:

    Cependant quoiqu'aucune expérience ne semble encore avoir constaté invinciblement la pesanteur et l'impénétrabilité du Feu, il paroît qu'on ne peut se dispenser de les admettre. (Voltaire, "Essai sur la nature du feu," Recueil, p. 180.)


    However, although there is still no experiment that seems to have showed beyond doubt the gravity and impenetrability of fire, it is apparently impossible to give up admitting them.
  • LynneLynne Your Teacher HomePosts: 9,594 mod
    edited November 2016
    I visited an (the) iron forge, and whilst I was there I had all the scales replaced. The new scales were fitted with iron chains instead of ropes. After that I had both the heated and the cooled metal within the range of one to two thousand pounds weighed. As I never found the smallest difference in their weights I reasoned as follows: The surface of these enormous masses of heated iron had been enlarged due to their dilation, therefore they must have had less specific gravity.

    So, I can conclude - despite the fact that the weight stays the same irrespective of whether they are hot or cool - that the fire had penetrated the metal adding precisely as much weight as dilation had made them lose, and consequently, fire has real weight.

    However, although no experiment to date seems to have shown beyond any doubt the gravity and impenetrability of fire, it is apparently impossible to give up admitting them.

    Not sure about the bit ".. it is apparently impossible to give up admitting them" at the end. Maybe "... it is apparently impossible to ignore the possibility".
  • XanthippeXanthippe Posts: 1,776 ✭✭✭✭✭
    The last bit is difficult - would 'assuming' do? 'Give up assuming them, i.e. gravity and impenetrability?
    'Ignore the possibility' is OK of course but the sense is somewhat more specialised. This is my problem.

    'On purpose' means that he intended to do an experiment so "I visited.... to conduct an experiment" would be better I think. Yes, the original sentence is artificial - I translated it literally.
  • XanthippeXanthippe Posts: 1,776 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Or perhaps: it is apparently impossible not to assume them.
  • XanthippeXanthippe Posts: 1,776 ✭✭✭✭✭
    @Lynne, another one if you don't mind (the syntax is complicated):


    En vérité, c'est une chose admirable, que la facilité avec laquelle cette petite bare, que vous avez mise devant l'expression de la force du Corps A, vous a débarassé de ces 8 de force, que votre calcul même vous donnoit après le choc, au lieu de 4 que vous lui demandiez ; mais, dites-moi, je vous supplie, si ce signe moins, et cette soustraction ont ôté aux Corps A et B, quelque partie de leur force, et si les effets que feront ces Corps sur des obstacles quelconques, en feront moindres, c'est assurément ce que vous ne pensez pas, et je ne crois pas que vous en voulussiez faire l'expérience, ni vous trouver dans le chemin d'un Corps qui réjailliroit affecté de ce signe moins, avec 500 ou 1000 de force. ("Réponse de Madame la Marquise du Chastellet à la Lettre de Mr. de Mairan," in Institutions physiques, p. 529.)


    To tell the truth, it is remarkable with what ease this small bar you put in front of the formula for the force of the body A rid you of this 8 of force that even your own calculation gave you after collision instead of 4 that you had expected from it; but, tell me, I beg you, if this sign minus and this subtraction took off some part of force from the bodies A and B and if the effects exercised by these bodies on any obstacles were diminished by it, it is certainly what you do not have in mind and I do not think that you would like to either experience it or find yourself in the path of a body that would bounce back affected by this sign minus with 500 or 1000 of force.
  • LynneLynne Your Teacher HomePosts: 9,594 mod
    Not 100% positive, but try:-

    In truth, it is an admirable thing, the ease with which this little bar, which you have placed before the expression of the force of the Body A, has rid you of these 8 by force, which your calculation itself gave you after the collision, instead of the 4 you expected. But tell me, I beseech you, if this minus sign and this subtraction have deprived parts A and B of some force, and if the effects of these bodies on any obstacles were diminished by it, I doubt you would want to either experience it, or find yourself in the path of a body which would be affected thus by this minus sign with a force of 500 or 1000.

    (I'm not happy with this "has rid you of these 8 by / of force, which your calculation itself gave you after the collision, instead of the 4 you expected."
  • XanthippeXanthippe Posts: 1,776 ✭✭✭✭✭
    OMG, too late, @Lynne.
Sign In or Register to comment.