Several questions regarding a passage by Robert Boyle
Robert Boyle once wrote in one of his papers:
That, then, which I chiefly aim at is to make it probable to you by experiments (which I think hath not yet been done) that almost all sorts of qualities, most of which have been by the Schools either left unexplicated, or generally referred to I know not what incomprehensible substantial forms, may be produced mechanically - I mean by such corporeal agents as do not appear either to work otherwise than by virtue of the motion, size, figure, and contrivance, of their own parts
-- Selected Philosophical Papers of Robert Boyle [On Google Books]
I have several difficulties regarding the meaning and grammar of above-mentioned passage:
The best way I can understand I know not is as a parenthetical phrase. Is that correct? Why not I don't know? Even so I could not make a proper sense of the sentence. There should be something referring in the phrase generally referred to I know not what incomprehensible substantial forms to the outer which, but here it seems that there is no such reference.
In the next sentence we read such corporal agents as do not .... I think there is a subject omitted in this case: such corporal agents as that which do not .... Is that correct? Is there a general rule regarding this omission?
pronouns determiners parentheticals such
add a comment |
Robert Boyle once wrote in one of his papers:
That, then, which I chiefly aim at is to make it probable to you by experiments (which I think hath not yet been done) that almost all sorts of qualities, most of which have been by the Schools either left unexplicated, or generally referred to I know not what incomprehensible substantial forms, may be produced mechanically - I mean by such corporeal agents as do not appear either to work otherwise than by virtue of the motion, size, figure, and contrivance, of their own parts
-- Selected Philosophical Papers of Robert Boyle [On Google Books]
I have several difficulties regarding the meaning and grammar of above-mentioned passage:
The best way I can understand I know not is as a parenthetical phrase. Is that correct? Why not I don't know? Even so I could not make a proper sense of the sentence. There should be something referring in the phrase generally referred to I know not what incomprehensible substantial forms to the outer which, but here it seems that there is no such reference.
In the next sentence we read such corporal agents as do not .... I think there is a subject omitted in this case: such corporal agents as that which do not .... Is that correct? Is there a general rule regarding this omission?
pronouns determiners parentheticals such
With regard to the corporeal agents, although I'm far from confident parsing this I understand "by such corporeal agents" to refer to "may be produced mechanically". I think the core idea is "I aim to make probable to you that almost all sorts of qualities may be produced mechanically by corporeal agents."
– Al Maki
14 hours ago
Robert Boyle lived from 1627 to 1691, and people used to speak and write English differently in the seventeenth century. They may appear excessively verbose to us. Because if there is one thing modernity has taught us, it is to value lucidity over elegance of expression. His writings are almost contemporaneous with the James I version of the bible.
– WS2
8 hours ago
@WS2 Thank you for your witty remark! BTW I guess the KJV would sound archaic even to a contemporaneous reader.
– Kaveh
26 mins ago
add a comment |
Robert Boyle once wrote in one of his papers:
That, then, which I chiefly aim at is to make it probable to you by experiments (which I think hath not yet been done) that almost all sorts of qualities, most of which have been by the Schools either left unexplicated, or generally referred to I know not what incomprehensible substantial forms, may be produced mechanically - I mean by such corporeal agents as do not appear either to work otherwise than by virtue of the motion, size, figure, and contrivance, of their own parts
-- Selected Philosophical Papers of Robert Boyle [On Google Books]
I have several difficulties regarding the meaning and grammar of above-mentioned passage:
The best way I can understand I know not is as a parenthetical phrase. Is that correct? Why not I don't know? Even so I could not make a proper sense of the sentence. There should be something referring in the phrase generally referred to I know not what incomprehensible substantial forms to the outer which, but here it seems that there is no such reference.
In the next sentence we read such corporal agents as do not .... I think there is a subject omitted in this case: such corporal agents as that which do not .... Is that correct? Is there a general rule regarding this omission?
pronouns determiners parentheticals such
Robert Boyle once wrote in one of his papers:
That, then, which I chiefly aim at is to make it probable to you by experiments (which I think hath not yet been done) that almost all sorts of qualities, most of which have been by the Schools either left unexplicated, or generally referred to I know not what incomprehensible substantial forms, may be produced mechanically - I mean by such corporeal agents as do not appear either to work otherwise than by virtue of the motion, size, figure, and contrivance, of their own parts
-- Selected Philosophical Papers of Robert Boyle [On Google Books]
I have several difficulties regarding the meaning and grammar of above-mentioned passage:
The best way I can understand I know not is as a parenthetical phrase. Is that correct? Why not I don't know? Even so I could not make a proper sense of the sentence. There should be something referring in the phrase generally referred to I know not what incomprehensible substantial forms to the outer which, but here it seems that there is no such reference.
In the next sentence we read such corporal agents as do not .... I think there is a subject omitted in this case: such corporal agents as that which do not .... Is that correct? Is there a general rule regarding this omission?
pronouns determiners parentheticals such
pronouns determiners parentheticals such
asked 14 hours ago
Kaveh
628
628
With regard to the corporeal agents, although I'm far from confident parsing this I understand "by such corporeal agents" to refer to "may be produced mechanically". I think the core idea is "I aim to make probable to you that almost all sorts of qualities may be produced mechanically by corporeal agents."
– Al Maki
14 hours ago
Robert Boyle lived from 1627 to 1691, and people used to speak and write English differently in the seventeenth century. They may appear excessively verbose to us. Because if there is one thing modernity has taught us, it is to value lucidity over elegance of expression. His writings are almost contemporaneous with the James I version of the bible.
– WS2
8 hours ago
@WS2 Thank you for your witty remark! BTW I guess the KJV would sound archaic even to a contemporaneous reader.
– Kaveh
26 mins ago
add a comment |
With regard to the corporeal agents, although I'm far from confident parsing this I understand "by such corporeal agents" to refer to "may be produced mechanically". I think the core idea is "I aim to make probable to you that almost all sorts of qualities may be produced mechanically by corporeal agents."
– Al Maki
14 hours ago
Robert Boyle lived from 1627 to 1691, and people used to speak and write English differently in the seventeenth century. They may appear excessively verbose to us. Because if there is one thing modernity has taught us, it is to value lucidity over elegance of expression. His writings are almost contemporaneous with the James I version of the bible.
– WS2
8 hours ago
@WS2 Thank you for your witty remark! BTW I guess the KJV would sound archaic even to a contemporaneous reader.
– Kaveh
26 mins ago
With regard to the corporeal agents, although I'm far from confident parsing this I understand "by such corporeal agents" to refer to "may be produced mechanically". I think the core idea is "I aim to make probable to you that almost all sorts of qualities may be produced mechanically by corporeal agents."
– Al Maki
14 hours ago
With regard to the corporeal agents, although I'm far from confident parsing this I understand "by such corporeal agents" to refer to "may be produced mechanically". I think the core idea is "I aim to make probable to you that almost all sorts of qualities may be produced mechanically by corporeal agents."
– Al Maki
14 hours ago
Robert Boyle lived from 1627 to 1691, and people used to speak and write English differently in the seventeenth century. They may appear excessively verbose to us. Because if there is one thing modernity has taught us, it is to value lucidity over elegance of expression. His writings are almost contemporaneous with the James I version of the bible.
– WS2
8 hours ago
Robert Boyle lived from 1627 to 1691, and people used to speak and write English differently in the seventeenth century. They may appear excessively verbose to us. Because if there is one thing modernity has taught us, it is to value lucidity over elegance of expression. His writings are almost contemporaneous with the James I version of the bible.
– WS2
8 hours ago
@WS2 Thank you for your witty remark! BTW I guess the KJV would sound archaic even to a contemporaneous reader.
– Kaveh
26 mins ago
@WS2 Thank you for your witty remark! BTW I guess the KJV would sound archaic even to a contemporaneous reader.
– Kaveh
26 mins ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
It's preferable to ask your questions separately, rather than all together, but I will endeavour to answer.
I know not is the older form of I do not know. I'm not sure when it really went obsolete (you occasionally find it in 19th century writing, but I think it was archaic then). It's not a parenthetical phrase, but (part of) an adjectival phrase modifying "incomprehensible insubstantial forms": "I don't know what kind of ... forms". Here it's really a rhetorical flourish meaning "various", with a connotation of disapproval: maybe something like "outlandish" or "ridiculous" catches the meaning.
"Generally referred to" refers back to "qualities". The Schools either leave the qualities unexplained or refer them to those ridiculous insubstantial forms.
"Such NP as VP" is another literary trope, not obsolete but now rare. "As" has the force of a restrictive relative pronoun. Your paraphrase is accurate, but I would probably say "Those corporeal agents that do not ... "
@ColinsFine I would be thankful if you could supplement your answer with references for both parts, specially as for such part.
– Kaveh
14 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f479320%2fseveral-questions-regarding-a-passage-by-robert-boyle%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
It's preferable to ask your questions separately, rather than all together, but I will endeavour to answer.
I know not is the older form of I do not know. I'm not sure when it really went obsolete (you occasionally find it in 19th century writing, but I think it was archaic then). It's not a parenthetical phrase, but (part of) an adjectival phrase modifying "incomprehensible insubstantial forms": "I don't know what kind of ... forms". Here it's really a rhetorical flourish meaning "various", with a connotation of disapproval: maybe something like "outlandish" or "ridiculous" catches the meaning.
"Generally referred to" refers back to "qualities". The Schools either leave the qualities unexplained or refer them to those ridiculous insubstantial forms.
"Such NP as VP" is another literary trope, not obsolete but now rare. "As" has the force of a restrictive relative pronoun. Your paraphrase is accurate, but I would probably say "Those corporeal agents that do not ... "
@ColinsFine I would be thankful if you could supplement your answer with references for both parts, specially as for such part.
– Kaveh
14 hours ago
add a comment |
It's preferable to ask your questions separately, rather than all together, but I will endeavour to answer.
I know not is the older form of I do not know. I'm not sure when it really went obsolete (you occasionally find it in 19th century writing, but I think it was archaic then). It's not a parenthetical phrase, but (part of) an adjectival phrase modifying "incomprehensible insubstantial forms": "I don't know what kind of ... forms". Here it's really a rhetorical flourish meaning "various", with a connotation of disapproval: maybe something like "outlandish" or "ridiculous" catches the meaning.
"Generally referred to" refers back to "qualities". The Schools either leave the qualities unexplained or refer them to those ridiculous insubstantial forms.
"Such NP as VP" is another literary trope, not obsolete but now rare. "As" has the force of a restrictive relative pronoun. Your paraphrase is accurate, but I would probably say "Those corporeal agents that do not ... "
@ColinsFine I would be thankful if you could supplement your answer with references for both parts, specially as for such part.
– Kaveh
14 hours ago
add a comment |
It's preferable to ask your questions separately, rather than all together, but I will endeavour to answer.
I know not is the older form of I do not know. I'm not sure when it really went obsolete (you occasionally find it in 19th century writing, but I think it was archaic then). It's not a parenthetical phrase, but (part of) an adjectival phrase modifying "incomprehensible insubstantial forms": "I don't know what kind of ... forms". Here it's really a rhetorical flourish meaning "various", with a connotation of disapproval: maybe something like "outlandish" or "ridiculous" catches the meaning.
"Generally referred to" refers back to "qualities". The Schools either leave the qualities unexplained or refer them to those ridiculous insubstantial forms.
"Such NP as VP" is another literary trope, not obsolete but now rare. "As" has the force of a restrictive relative pronoun. Your paraphrase is accurate, but I would probably say "Those corporeal agents that do not ... "
It's preferable to ask your questions separately, rather than all together, but I will endeavour to answer.
I know not is the older form of I do not know. I'm not sure when it really went obsolete (you occasionally find it in 19th century writing, but I think it was archaic then). It's not a parenthetical phrase, but (part of) an adjectival phrase modifying "incomprehensible insubstantial forms": "I don't know what kind of ... forms". Here it's really a rhetorical flourish meaning "various", with a connotation of disapproval: maybe something like "outlandish" or "ridiculous" catches the meaning.
"Generally referred to" refers back to "qualities". The Schools either leave the qualities unexplained or refer them to those ridiculous insubstantial forms.
"Such NP as VP" is another literary trope, not obsolete but now rare. "As" has the force of a restrictive relative pronoun. Your paraphrase is accurate, but I would probably say "Those corporeal agents that do not ... "
answered 14 hours ago
Colin Fine
63.7k170160
63.7k170160
@ColinsFine I would be thankful if you could supplement your answer with references for both parts, specially as for such part.
– Kaveh
14 hours ago
add a comment |
@ColinsFine I would be thankful if you could supplement your answer with references for both parts, specially as for such part.
– Kaveh
14 hours ago
@ColinsFine I would be thankful if you could supplement your answer with references for both parts, specially as for such part.
– Kaveh
14 hours ago
@ColinsFine I would be thankful if you could supplement your answer with references for both parts, specially as for such part.
– Kaveh
14 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f479320%2fseveral-questions-regarding-a-passage-by-robert-boyle%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
With regard to the corporeal agents, although I'm far from confident parsing this I understand "by such corporeal agents" to refer to "may be produced mechanically". I think the core idea is "I aim to make probable to you that almost all sorts of qualities may be produced mechanically by corporeal agents."
– Al Maki
14 hours ago
Robert Boyle lived from 1627 to 1691, and people used to speak and write English differently in the seventeenth century. They may appear excessively verbose to us. Because if there is one thing modernity has taught us, it is to value lucidity over elegance of expression. His writings are almost contemporaneous with the James I version of the bible.
– WS2
8 hours ago
@WS2 Thank you for your witty remark! BTW I guess the KJV would sound archaic even to a contemporaneous reader.
– Kaveh
26 mins ago