Hi Kyneto. In my opinion, your expression is altogether clear, good and grammatical (but you know I'm not an expert). However, is it right where you say "non poterant animadverte" in the phrase "The only way they could observe what was happening was with their Geiger counters", or is that a typo for "non poterant animadvertere"?
Same thing. Is "ad mitiendum" = "ad mittendum" and "rurus" = "rursus"?
As a novice, I can spot the typos more easily using the original because it narrows down ambiguities for me when I come across them. Which doesn't mean I still won't say daft things.
[Also how about "instrumentum Geiger" or "mensura radiationum Geiger" or "mensura Geiger", as the equivalent of "Geiger counter/meter"? See http://alpha.furman.edu/~dmorgan/lexicon/silva.htm
--even though Morgan doesn't actually give "Geiger counter" there.]
Salve, Kyneto care. MeÃ¢ sententiÃ¢, te et clarÃ¨ et admirabilÃ¨ et grammaticÃ¨ ostensis (ut interim me tiro esse scias). Tamen, hac de locutione, incertus sum: "The only way they could observe what was happening was with their Geiger counters", ubi dicis "non poterant animadverte". Estne illud peccatum typographicum pro "non poterant animadvertere"?
Similiter, nonne est "ad mitiendum" peccatum pro "ad mittendum", et "rurus" pro "rursus"?
Scripturam principem anglicÃ¨ habens, ego tiro faciliÃ¹s peccata videam, quia, ubi incertus sim, principe usu me ambiguitas adstringere liceat. CertÃ¨ adhÃºc, suggestiones meae praeposterae sint, et erunt, sine dubitÃ³.
[Estimasne "instrumentum Geiger" atque "mensura radiationum Geiger" et "mensura Geiger", ut anglicÃ¨ "Geiger counter/meter" aequalia? Vide http://alpha.furman.edu/~dmorgan/lexicon/silva.htm
--etsi ibi Morgan ne verÃ² compellet "Geiger counter".]