QS!^ 05 MR. DALTON's PRINCIPLE OF COMBINATION. 



that is involved in the words 6?Mory, ternary y &c., which 

 refer, not to the quantity, but to the quality of the 

 atoms*. 



After these preliminary observations, I shall proceed 

 to the subject moie immediately tinder consideration. 

 In the conclusion of the first part of hii^ system, Mr. 

 Dalton introduces a short chapter on chemical synthesis, in 

 Chemical syn- ^^ich he informs us, that ** one great object of h»8 work is 

 thesis. *« to show the importance and advantage ot ascertaiouvj- the 



** relative weights of the ultimate > articles, ooth of simple 

 •* and compound bodies, the number of simple elementary 

 •* particles which constitute one compound particle, and the 

 '* number of less compound particles which enter into the 

 ** formation of one more compound particle." He then 

 goes on to state, that when two bodies A and B are disposed 



* I hope I shall not be thought hypercritical, if I point out an inaccu- 

 racy into which you have fallen, in your tianslation of Mr. Grotlhuvs*s 

 paper on metallic arborization, inserted in your last number. The follow- 

 ing sentence occurs in it j" " Let us suppose a thread of, water formed 

 ** of three integrant particles, each coiHposed of two atoms of oxigen, 

 " represented by % , and one of hidrogen, &c." Knowing by the date 

 of the paper, that between 3 or 4 yeais must have elapsed since it was 

 -written, 1 was surprised to meet with the word atom in this connexion, 

 and was induced to turn to the original, where 1 found th« expression 

 to be; " Consideroos un filet d' eau forme de trois molecules intc- 

 ** granles dont chacune soit composee d' oxigene, represent^ par § , <k 

 ** d'hidrogene ropresente par 1, &c." In works of science, particularly 

 ■where the language has been controverted, we should closely adhere not 

 only to the sense^ but, where it is possible, to the terms of the original. 

 Ann. €him. V. LXIII, p. 19, 20. *♦ 



•* [Answer* It appears to me, that one great source of the corrup- 

 tion of language is the retaining the words of one language in what is 

 called a translation into another, without necessitj ; and that this has 

 been of late years a growing evil in our own, partly.from the carelessness 

 and partly from the ignorance of translators, which I have generally been 

 studious to avoid. To the word mo/ecw/e 1 have always felt a particular 

 objectian, not only because I conceive our English word particle to be of 

 the same signification, but because, when pronounced, its sound is liable 

 to excite a lurlicraus idea. Mr. Dalton*s recent observation, that he did 

 not understand the meaning of the word particle, induced me to employ 

 that of atom, to which 1 did not imagine any objection could lie. C] 



to 



