Hac luce anno 1942, Enricus Fermi experimentum fecit

Composition and Communication Composition Board
1

Here is my translation of an essay I received via email. I translated it as an exercise. What do you think? Any glaring errors?

Hac luce anno 1942 periti hominibus, qui incepto “Manhattan? operam dabant apud studiorium Universitatem Sicagensem, primum produxerunt reactionem atomorum fissione. Dux experimenti erat advena praeclarus ex Italia (nisi fallor) nomine Enricus Fermi, qui prius palmam Nobelianam adeptus erat ob repertum principiorum fissionis. Magister Fermi intellegebat quod si atomus scinderetur neutrone, atomus emitteret plus neutronum capacum scindendi alios atomos ita ut reactio in forma cadenae produceretur. Ad hanc theoriam probandam super campum athleticum veterem, ille et ejus adjutores construxerunt reactorium ex lateribus uranii quibus additi sunt alii lateres ex graphita factos qui tardarent neutrones. Turma parvula scientiarum peritorum usus sunt ferulis ex cadmio factis quibus reactio cunctaretur donec omnia parata essent. Experimento incipiente, par peritorum juvenum stabant super speciem constrati imminentis reactorio. Qui manibus gerebant situlas plenas cadmii liquidi ad infundendum supra reactorium si periculum esset ut reactio fieret instabilis.

Reactio inceptus est mane prope decimam horam. Ferulis remotis ut uranii neutrones inciperent atomos scindere, non poterant animadverte quid accideret in reactorio nisi cum instrumentis adhibitis ad radiationes detectandas. Haec adhibita sunt ad mitiendum numerum neutronum qui apud celam reactorii emitterentur. Instrumenta incipiebant emittere parvulos sonos similes grillo cantanti. Illi soni indicabant multos neutrones emittere. Soni augescebant et pulsabant rapidius donec, secundum testes, factus est magnus clamor. Tandem Enricus Fermi reactionem massam criticalem assecutam esse pronuntiavit. Ferulis rurus insertis ut reactio desisteret, testes participesque plauderunt at nemo ovavit. Victoria supra naturam celebrata est vino infuso in poculis e papyro factis at nulla facta est propinatio.

2

Not one comment? No errors? “Kind of disappointing for a writer’s workshop he griped,” he griped.

3

Salve, Kyneto:

Could you provide the English version as well? Maybe it would be easier that way…

:wink:

4

Well you are right that I didn’t write the original. Yea … sorry I don’t have it …it happened to be up on the screen from my roomate’s email when I got on the computer the other day and I have no idea about the source. But not having the english should matter. What’s important is how it flows, whether it adheres to the grammatical principles I have been studying to master, whether it is clear, etc. Next time I will post something original. I am working on something now.

5

I followed you on your open invitation, Kyneto. I agree with Amadeus. With translations, isn’t it always best to include the original in English (or rather the original langauge) in order that we might learn, as well as to facilitate comment? [Actually, I know you agree.] In fact, for the same reason, I have started trying to apply the same principle in all communications in these fora. What do you think, Kyneto Amadeus and others? Isn’t that a good thing to do?

Ut nobis omnibus suggessisti, hoc in loco te secutus sum, Kyneto. Sententiae Amadei assentior. Quoniam traductionem facitur, cur scripturam anglicè, an lingua principe, semper non dare, ut proinde simul discamus et meliùs annotemus? [Ut concurras, Kyneto, iam scio.] Quamobrem quidem, semper sic communicare his in foris decrevi. Ut opinamini, Kyneto Amadeeque et omnes, nonne consuetudo laudanda sit?

6

Patience!

7

Salvete amici comitesque omnes

Nescio quomodo acciderit sed quid malum modo mihi accidit! Longiorem responsum Adriano scripseram at aliquomodo incaute pulsavi aliquem globulum non aptum ad nuntios mittendos, ita ut pulchra epistula avanesceret in aether. Quod molestum quia mihi omnia iterum componenda sunt. Dubium est autem num mihi ahuc maneat satis energiae ut omnia reproducam. Itaque tantum summa scribam.

Adriane optime tibi gratias do pro commentariolis tuis at non puto me tibi consentire. Scriptum quod misi erat exaratum linga latina. Nihil obstabat, quod sicio, ut socii mihi darent opiniones num bene et grammatice rem exposuissem annon. Etiam nunc nemo conatus est dicere quid de re ipsa. Hoc autem mihi nullo modo curae est quia, ut opinor, quid incipimus moliri majus momenti. Nam quid majus momenti est quam ut incipiamus nos latine exprimere? Video te avide operam rebus latinis dare. Quod manopere probandum est. Bonam viam sequeris!

Hebdomadibus advenientibus spero me multa scripturum. Consilium est conamina huc mittere. Diende omnibus commentariolis bene digestis et erroribus molestibus excisis remotisque perfectum scriptum gregi latini loquentium mittam. Non debui huc mittere illam symbolam de Enricio Fermi quia iam divulgatam erat. Futuris primum scripta huc ponam diende apud gregem. Quod mihi plus sensus facit ut nunc mihi videtur nam hic possumus rem qualibet linguam jactare. Fieri potest quoque ut aliqua scriba destinata tantum huic foro scribam. Nescio. Vero tamen quodcumque consilium sequar, mihi erit magno auxilio tuas suggestiones accipere seu eas des anglice seu latine. Vale. Kynetus

8

One good thing about the interface here at text kit is that you are permitted to correct errors even after you have sent something. menda pluraque modo refeci! aliud bonum esse puto quod nobis licet uti quacumque lingua placeat. or should that be “placet” :question:

9

Hey, Guess what peeps? I found the text that I worked from to write that little thing on Fermi. It was sitting in an open notebook file that I’d forgotten about. Well, for what it is worth, not much I suppose, here it is. But remember in some places I was doing more of a paraphrase than a translation. My next piece will be original and there will not be an english translation to compare to. What I am really interested in is whether the latin piece has any glaring errors in it (not whether it is a good translation perse) Best to all.

It was on this day in 1942 that scientists working on the Manhattan
Project at the University of Chicago conducted the first-ever man-made
nuclear reaction. The leader of the experiment was the Italian immigrant
Enrico Fermi, who had won a Nobel Prize for discovering fission. He had
realized that if you split an atom with a neutron, the split atom would
produce more neutrons, which could then split other atoms, and so on,
creating a chain reaction. To test the idea, he and his assistants
built a makeshift nuclear reactor on an unused squash court near the
university’s football field, constructing a pile of uranium bricks
interspersed with graphite blocks to slow down the neutrons. They used
neutron-absorbing cadmium rods to delay the reaction until they were ready. A
couple of young physicists stood on a scaffold over the pile with buckets
of liquid cadmium as an emergency measure in case there was a meltdown.

They started the reaction at 9:45 a.m., withdrawing all the cadmium
rods so that the uranium neutrons would begin splitting atoms. The only
way they could observe what was happening was with their Geiger counters,
which measured the number of neutrons in the room. As the rods were
removed, the Geiger counters made a clicking sound that grew faster and
faster, until they began to make a sound that one of the eyewitnesses
described as a roar. Finally, Fermi announced that the reaction had
reached critical mass, and they reinserted the rods to shut it down. People
applauded, but nobody cheered. They celebrated with paper cups of
Chianti, but nobody made a toast. One of the young physicists there that day
said, “We had known that we were about to unlock a giant; still, we
could not escape an eerie feeling when we knew we had actually done it.”

10

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. Meâ sententiâ, te et clarè et admirabilè et grammaticè 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 anglicè habens, ego tiro faciliùs peccata videam, quia, ubi incertus sim, principe usu me ambiguitas adstringere liceat. Certè adhúc, suggestiones meae praeposterae sint, et erunt, sine dubitó.

[Estimasne “instrumentum Geiger” atque “mensura radiationum Geiger” et “mensura Geiger”, ut anglicè “Geiger counter/meter” aequalia? Vide http://alpha.furman.edu/~dmorgan/lexicon/silva.htm --etsi ibi Morgan ne verò compellet “Geiger counter”.]

11

Last sentence? One of the young physicists there that day said, “We had known that we were about to unlock a giant; still, we could not escape an eerie feeling when we knew we had actually done it.”

Quid de sententiâ ultimâ? Ait unus è petitis physicorum juvenibus adstatis illâ die: “Ut nos gigantem cituri essemus, sciveramus; atquin, facto noto verè confacto fuisse, et inexplicabile et externo sensu capti sumus.” [?]

12

Salve Adriane

Thanks for taking the time.

or is that a typo for “non poterant animadvertere”?

Right ! That was a carelesss typing error… I did intend to use the infinitive
Recte mones. causa illius erroris fuit defectus attentionis. Debui ac volui uti infinitivo.


Same thing. Is “ad mitiendum” = “ad mittendum” and “rurus” = “rursus”?

No…I think I intended ad metiendum … for measuring, from metior. I really do have difficulties with attention. I feel kind of pathetic at times. I mean I actually looked up the word but I still wrote it down wrong

Mihi scribendum fuit “metiendum” quod verbum ortum ducit verbo "metior. Revera patior difficultatibus ob carenciam attentionis. Nonnumquam puto me admodum patheticum hominis specimen esse. Hoc in caso quamquam verbum quaesivi in indice verborum nihilominus digiti molesti eum vitiose scripserunt.



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.

As for geiger counter, when I couldn’t find a current word, I worked around the problem by just describing what it does without specifically naming it.

juvat scire tibi curae esse scribere latine. !! Rectam viam sequeris.

13

Doesn’t everyone do the same? Maybe I should have figured out “metiendum” from the context. Also, thanks for your kind words.
Qui sic non facit? Fortasse circumjacentiis “metiendum” dictionem cognovisse debui. Verbis benevolentibus tuis etiam, Kyneto, gratias tibi ago.