I found this interesting section on the article on Jules Verne on the Wikipedia site:

Reputation in the English-speaking countries

In France he is renowned for writing good French that boys will be interested in reading. In those countries for which his works were accurately translated as well, his scientific and political abilities are also noted. Not so in the English-speaking countries.

The British Empire was often criticized by him, and it happened that his first translator was the Reverend Lewis Page Mercier, writing under a pseudonym, who cut out such passages, for example the political action of Captain Nemo. Mercier and subsequent British translators had especial trouble with the metric system that Verne used - sometimes they converted the units to Imperial, sometimes they dropped significant figures, sometimes they just kept the metric number and changed the unit to an Imperial one. This made Verne's calculations, exact for his age, into gibberish. Artistic passages and whole chapters were cut in the need to fit the work in the space for publication, regardless of what it meant to the plot.

Hence Verne's work acquired a reputation in English-speaking countries of not being an adult work in any regard. Because he was not considered a literateur, it was not seen fit to have his works re-translated. So the translations of Mercier and others were reprinted decade after decade. Finally, in 1965, the first translations into English since the nineteenth century were published. But still Verne is not fully rehabilitated in the English-speaking countries.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jules_Verne


I guess the moral of the story is not to convert metric to imperial.

From the same website I found something else of interest. Even though the book Vingt Mille Lieues sous les mers (Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea, 1870) is famous, I wonder how many people, especially those raised on imperial units know how far 20 000 Leagues is. The Lieue of Verne's time was set at 4 km and today a League is 3 nautical miles or 5.5 km. Thus 20 000 Lieues would be 80 Mm and 20 000 Leagues would be 110 Mm. The irony of this is that when you consider the earth is 12.7 Mm in diameter, the 20 000 lieues or Leagues puts the person directly through the earth and right out into space and not "under the sea". Or am I missing something?

"Twenty thousand leagues" refers to how far travelled under the surface of the sea... not how far travelled through the Earth. So yes, you are kissing something.

And I wouldn't rely on wikipedia to be the last word on anything, if I were you.

"Twenty thousand leagues" refers to how far travelled under the surface of the sea... not how far travelled through the Earth.


Ok...I see you point and understand. Somehow i thought that was a reference to depth and not horizontal travel.



So yes, you are kissing something.

Well, I can assure you it wasn't the Blarney Stone. Or were you thinking of something else? I'm sure you meant to type in an m instead of a k, but the result of your error was somewhat amusing. Maybe it wouldn't hurt to proof read before hitting POST. It may save you future embarrassment in the future should you end up typing a naughty word.


And I wouldn't rely on wikipedia to be the last word on anything, if I were you.

Well, I don't. But it is interesting to read some of the contributions once and awhile. Why not go there and start a page on the BWMA?

Why not indeed? I use it frequently.

And yes, that typo amused me also, but I did type it at about 7.30 this morning, so cut me some slack. :D

Indeed the "kissing" thing amused me also! I wouldn't be embarrassed about it.

Just be careful that you proof read before you post an item that's based on counting!

Just be careful that you proof read before you post an item that's based on counting!


The last half of your response didn't make sense to me. Can you explain? What does counting have to do with proofing?

That baffled me too.

Erin,

A tip in case you weren't aware. The metre was originally defined to be such that the distance from pole to equator is 10 Mm. Hence 40 Mm takes you round the world once (following the path of any great circle).

So although only approximate (well much less than 1% anyway) the metre is quite handy for visualising large distances on global scale.

Erin,

A tip in case you weren't aware. The metre was originally defined to be such that the distance from pole to equator is 10 Mm. Hence 40 Mm takes you round the world once (following the path of any great circle).

So although only approximate (well much less than 1% anyway) the metre is quite handy for visualising large distances on global scale.



Thank You! But I'm fully aware of this. I'm pro-metric basically because I'm exposed to more then other Americans. I don't live too far from the Canadian border and have been exposed to it on trips to Canada and have grown to appreciate its simplicity and versatility. I also have on the job exposure. Many of our customers are metric, so I've become used to it from a business perspective too.

"That baffled me too."

It was a vague attempt at a joke.

It's too rude to explain.