Q: CHAPTER 2

Amelius went straight back to the cottage, with the one desperate purpose of reverting to the old plan, and burying himself in his books. Surveying his well-filled shelves with an impatience unworthy of a scholar, Hume's "History of England" unhappily caught his eye. He took down the first volume. In less than half an hour he discovered that Hume could do nothing for him. Wisely inspired, he turned to the truer history next, which men call fiction. The writings of the one supreme genius, who soars above all other novelists as Shakespeare soars above all other dramatists--the writings of Walter Scott--had their place of honour in his library. The collection of the Waverley Novels at Tadmor had not been complete. Enviable Amelius had still to read _Rob Roy._ He opened the book. For the rest of the day he was in love with Diana Vernon; and when he looked out once or twice at the garden to rest his eyes, he saw "Andrew Fairservice" busy over the flowerbeds.

He closed the last page of the noble story as Toff came in to lay the cloth for dinner.

The master at table and the servant behind his chair were accustomed to gossip pleasantly during meals. Amelius did his best to carry on the talk as usual. But he was no longer in the delightful world of illusion which Scott had opened to him. The hard realities of his own everyday life had gathered round him again. Observing him with unobtrusive attention, the Frenchman soon perceived the absence of the easy humour and the excellent appetite which distinguished his young master at other times.

Answer the following questions:
1. Where did Ameilus go back to?
2. What did he plan to do?
3. What book first caught his eye?
4. Was his collection of Waverley novels complete?
5. What were the master at the table and servant behind his chair use to?
6. What did the Frenchman notice?
7. Who did Amelius think was a supreme genius?
8. Did he think anyone else wrote better drama?
9. What book did he end up reading?
10. Who put the cloth down for dinner?
A: 1. the cottage
2. burying himself in his books
3. Hume's "History of England"
4. no
5. to gossip pleasantly during meals
6. the absence of the easy humour and the excellent appetite which distinguished his young master at other times
7. Shakespeare
8. no
9. Rob Roy
10. Toff

Answer the questions at the end based on the text.

CHAPTER XXII--FIXING THE BOUNDS

Leonard came towards Normanstand next forenoon in considerable mental disturbance. In the first place he was seriously in love with Stephen, and love is in itself a disturbing influence.

Leonard's love was all of the flesh; and as such had power at present to disturb him, as it would later have power to torture him. Again, he was disturbed by the fear of losing Stephen, or rather of not being able to gain her. At first, ever since she had left him on the path from the hilltop till his interview the next day, he had looked on her possession as an 'option,' to the acceptance of which circumstances seemed to be compelling him. But ever since, that asset seemed to have been dwindling; and now he was almost beginning to despair. He was altogether cold at heart, and yet highly strung with apprehension, as he was shown into the blue drawing-room.

Stephen came in alone, closing the door behind her. She shook hands with him, and sat down by a writing-table near the window, pointing to him to sit on an ottoman a little distance away. The moment he sat down he realised that he was at a disadvantage; he was not close to her, and he could not get closer without manifesting his intention of so doing. He wanted to be closer, both for the purpose of his suit and for his own pleasure; the proximity of Stephen began to multiply his love for her. He thought that to-day she looked better than ever, of a warm radiant beauty which touched his senses with unattainable desire. She could not but notice the passion in his eyes, and instinctively her eyes wandered to a silver gong placed on the table well within reach. The more he glowed, the more icily calm she sat, till the silence between them began to grow oppressive. She waited, determined that he should be the first to speak. Recognising the helplessness of silence, he began huskily:

1. Who was Leonard's true love?
2. Was Stephen a man or a woman?
3. Where was Leonard when she left him?
4. How was Leonard feeling?
5. In what room did they meet?
6. How did she greet him?
7. Where did she want him to sit?
8. What color was the room?
9. Who spoke first?
10. Why did he feel that he was at a disadvantage?
11. What was noticeable about his eyes?

Numbered answers:

A: 1. Stephen
2. a woman
3. hilltop
4. apprehension
5. drawing-room.
6. She shook hands with him
7. ottoman
8. blue
9. Leonard
10. he was not close to her
11. passion

Answer the questions at the end based on the text.

The English word "translation" derives from the Latin translatio (which itself comes from trans- and from fero, the supine form of which is latumtogether meaning "a carrying across" or "a bringing across"). The modern Romance languages use equivalents of the English term "translation" that are derived from that same Latin source or from the alternative Latin traducere ("to lead across" or "to bring across"). The Slavic and Germanic languages (except in the case of the Dutch equivalent, "vertaling"a "re-language-ing") likewise use calques of these Latin sources.

Despite occasional theoretical diversity, the actual practice of translation has hardly changed since antiquity. Except for some extreme metaphrasers in the early Christian period and the Middle Ages, and adapters in various periods (especially pre-Classical Rome, and the 18th century), translators have generally shown prudent flexibility in seeking equivalents "literal" where possible, paraphrastic where necessary for the original meaning and other crucial "values" (e.g., style, verse form, concordance with musical accompaniment or, in films, with speech articulatory movements) as determined from context.

1. Has translating changed a bunch over the years?
2. When did a couple major changes happen?
3. Where there any others?
4. And they were?
5. Are people who translate very stiff?
6. Do they favor authentic or generalized translating?
7. Where does the term come from?
8. What was it called there?
9. How many definitions does that translate into?
10. Do they give any examples of what it translates into?
11. And they are?
12. Does anyone else have alternate examples that translate differently?
13. Who?
14. How do they translate it?
15. What other types of speeches also utilize these origins?
16. Are there any exceptions?
17. Are there very important variables to keep in tact when translating?
18. Like what?
19. Does it matter in movies?
20. In what aspect?

Numbered answers:

A:
1. No
2. early Christian period and the Middle Ages
3. Yes
4. pre-Classical Rome, and the 18th century
5. No
6. Literal/Authentic
7. Latin
8. the Latin translatio (which itself comes from trans- and from fero, the supine form of which is latum
9. unknown
10. Yes
11. "a carrying across" or "a bringing across"
12. Yes
13. The modern Romance languages
14. "to lead across" or "to bring across
15. Slavic and Germanic languages
16. the Dutch equivalent, "vertaling"
17. Yes
18. style, verse form, concordance with musical accompaniment
19. Yes
20. concordance with musical accompaniment or, in films, with speech articulatory movement