[x]

Clumsy article. Give the phrase. Give the usual translation. Give the proposed real translation. That’s not very hard, but that’s not what she did so far as I can see.

[DarrellZero]

Agreed. Amazing how often “clarifying” arguments are themselves manifestly unclear.

I’m fairly scientifically literate but this article didn’t teach me anything. All I can say is we’ve done pretty well with the interpretation used for the past 300 years, so any alternative reading needs to be fully justified.

[Phlyer]

Agree. It's also a tempest in a teapot. As the article states:

"Others think that it is so obviously correct that it is barely worth arguing for."

Nothing really changes with either interpretation of the Latin. The real point of the 1st Law is to refute Aristotle, who said that a constant force results in a *constant* velocity. He used the illustration of pushing an object across a table. If he pushed on it with about the same force, it moved smoothly across the table. Of course, Aristotle was ignoring friction. But that was the 'settled science' before Newton. So his 1st Law is upending Aristotelian pseudo-physics.

Which begged the question of what *does* a constant force do? Which is second law.

Then there was the question of what happens when there are no *external* forces, but the body itself is not constant - for example, if part of it comes loose? Third Law.

And none of those change meaning if 'unless' becomes 'insofar.'

[T Ruth]

Corpus omne perseverare in statu suo quiescendi vel movendi uniformiter in directum, nisi quatenus a viribus impressis cogitur statum illum mutare.

Old translation: "Every body continues in its state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed upon it."

Andrew Motte's 1729 translation rendered Newton's "nisi quatenus" as unless instead of except insofar, which Hoek argues was erroneous.

New translation: “Every body perseveres in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by forces impressed.”

[aquila48]

I think she got paid by the word, and by how big a deal she can make out of a nothing burger. IOW, clickbait!