Page talk:Aleksander Głowacki - O odkryciach i wynalazkach.djvu/13

Ping User:Nihil novi: I proofread another page, please take a look at my suggestions. Interesting page, on several levels :) --Piotrus (talk) 03:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ping User:Piotrus: Thanks for your review, which prompted me to take a closer look at this page. My thoughts are:
 * paragraph 2: "the" is not needed before "humankind" (as we would not put "the" before "mankind").
 * paragraph 3: the comma is not needed after "still" ("still more so" is one complete phrase).
 * the English expression "in fine" means "finally, in short, to sum up, in conclusion", which I think conveys the author's intent with the word "wreszcie". "In the end" might beg the question, "In the end of what?" In any case, the comma is not needed before "they appear incapable".
 * I now think "niedolezny" would be better rendered as "feckless" (in the sense of "ineffective").
 * "Nieszczesliwy" can be "unhappy", "unlucky", or "unfortunate". Who can say whether the backward tribes are unhappy? We might think them unlucky (not to be technologically-advanced 19th-century Europeans). But I suspect that the author's intent might best be conveyed by "unfortunate".
 * In the interest of dispatch, I will go ahead and make these adjustments. I would, however, appreciate any questions or further suggestions you may have, before the page is marked "validated".
 * The page is better for your review!
 * Nihil novi (talk) 10:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I very much agree with your other changes, but I disagree with the use of "in fine". The phrase is valid English but it is not idiomatic and is very uncommon, and nobody will understand what meaning is being conveyed here. If using "in the end" does not suit, I would suggest rephrasing either using a construction with "detail" or, better I think, using something like "ultimately" (to convey "in the final summary"), "essentially", or "in essence". It is hard to suggest alternatives without natively understanding the original, but as best I can tell the sense being conveyed there is one regarding an end state, or a final conclusion, or possibly a reluctant admission of futility.I will also note that "feckless" tends to connote a lack of initiative, in addition to being ineffective: it's not just that they have failed, or will fail, it is also that they have not even tried and exhibit no interest in trying. It is somewhat more strongly negative than mere "hapless", which connotes good-natured and good-faith attempt, but lack of ability or understanding to succeed or even get very far. Describing someone as "feckless" is always a criticism, but describing them as "hapless" may be done with humour, pity, or fondness. "Feckless" suggests hostility or censure on some level, but "hapless" is merely paternalistic. They are very similar in meaning, but differ in tone. Which one is better depends on what the original is intending to convey, but based on my (very much imperfect) understanding of this passage I lean slightly towards "hapless", especially in combination with "unfortunate" (which would be the idiomatic choice in the contemporary English literature; "unhappy" as a synonym for "unfortunate" had, I believe, fallen out of fashion by then, and is even more uncommon in modern English). --Xover (talk) 11:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Nice to hear from you!
 * I admit that I entertained similar concerns about "in fine" and "feckless".
 * Wiktionary, in principle, countenances "in fine": "(archaic) Ulitmately, in the end; in conclusion." The cited 18th-, 19th-, and even 20th-century quotations are also congruent with the idiom's use here (obscure as it would be to most of our contemporaries).
 * While my print dictionaries define "hapless" only as "luckless; unfortunate; unlucky", Wiktionary does give a second meaning, "devoid of talent or skill", which is apposite to Prus' text.
 * On balance, I would feel comfortable with:
 * "and in conclusion they appear incapable..."
 * "these hapless and unfortunate peoples."
 * Should there be no objections or better solutions, I will be glad to make these adjustments.
 * I hope you will favor us with other critiques as they come to mind.
 * Nihil novi (talk) 13:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ping User:Piotrus. Ping User:Xover. I have entered the two word changes. That should make Prus' brilliant 147-year-old text more assimilable to our contemporaries. Thank you both for your suggestions!
 * Nihil novi (talk) 23:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The page seems fine to me so I've updated its status. --Piotrus (talk) 08:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)