'
reviewer, "the last clause, and retaining the accents which belonged to the coefficients,' does not express the meaning of the original." The original of the whole passage runs thus;
"en changeant le coefficient de l'inconnue qu'on cherche, dans le terme tont connu, et en conservant d'ailleurs les accens tels qu'ils sont.”
It is not easy to perceive in what the defect of the translation consists. A literal rendering would not be very good English; moreover, there is an ambiguity in the original which does not exist in the translation. A doubt might arise in the mind of the learner which accents are meant, those which belong to the terms changed, or those which belong to the terms into which the change is made. In the translation the sense is precise, correct, and clear. Speaking of explanatory notes, the reviewer says, "in that given at page 95, doubtless by inadvertence, the parentheses, which ought to indicate the multiplication between the factors, are omitted." Parentheses in this case would be superfluous, the line separating the numerator from the denominator answering that purpose. In proof of this, examples might be quoted from writers of the first authority. Thus, page 82 of b
af
cd
ae-bd perfectly similar to the
this very work, we have c
case in question, and which
Cambridge, July, 1825.
is represented as faulty.
