Page talk:Aleksander Głowacki - O odkryciach i wynalazkach.djvu/10

User:Nihil novi: "15 million square miles"? The source in Polish says 900,000? Am I missing something? --Piotrus (talk) 04:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The word "mile" has been used over millenia for many different distances. Prus meant it as the German "geographical mile" [1] (he still uses it in his novel "Pharaoh" 22 years later, e.g., in the opening sentence of chapter 42), which by my calculations is equivalent to 4.6 U.K.-U.S. "international miles".

By my calculations, 1 square geographical mile = 21 square international miles.

By my present calculation, Prus' 900,000 square geographical miles (the total area of North and South America and Australia) equates to about 19,000,000 square international miles.

The actual area of North America is 9.5 million square international miles; of South America, 6.9 million square miles; of Australia, 3.0 square miles. That totals to 19.4 million square international miles.

I will correct my "15 million square miles" to my current calculation of 19 million square international miles.

Please let me know, if your own calculations diverge substantially from mine.

Thanks.

Nihil novi (talk) 03:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nihil novi: Sorry for the late reply (I strongly suggest echo/ping backs). A very interesting analysis. As I am however not very familiar with wikisource MoS, I am unsure if we should either use the original number with a TL note, or the new number with a TL note... but I do think this merits a TL note. Any idea who we could ping for a third opinion? --Piotrus (talk)

@Piotrus:

Thank you.

I'm guessing that by "TL" you mean "translator's"?

I have previously been told that translator's notes are not desired.

I am confident of my rendering of the area in square international miles, because it matches the combined numbers given on Wikipedia.

What I am not confident of is the type of miles that Prus is using. In Pharaoh he uses "geographic miles". The Wikipedia article on "geographic miles", near the bottom, discusses the German and Danish geographic mile. The "Polish mile" that you found is slightly different in length. So, even if I wanted to provide translator's notes, I would not know for sure which unit he is quoting, in order to be able to quote it.

Therefore I would just leave it as "over 19 million square internatioonal miles", without further explanatory apparatus.

Since I completed my original translation of Prus' lecture, I have found more accurate solutions (interpretations) of some of his expressions. That is almost inevitable when translating a text of any complexity.

Have you come across any other renderings that give you pause?

Nihil novi (talk) 12:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Piotrus::

On further thought, you've convinced me. Please see the translator's information inserted in brackets.

Thanks.

Nihil novi (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Piotrus:: Correction: it's not spelled "geographic", but "geographical mile". Wikipedia article: Geographical mile.

The page seems fine. While I think translators notes should be kept to a minimum, I don't see a choice here, unless we just go with his original term (without a note at all). I think you rnote is more informative, so I support it. --Piotrus (talk) 06:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)