externa specie prima fronte rem consideranti affinitatem habere videbuntur

[sjgallagher2]

I'm trying to take a stab at translating excerpts from Niccolo Cabeo's Philosophia Magnetica which contains the following sentence:

Quamvis enim extra magneticam naturam sint huiusmodi attractiones; quia tamen & nomine, & externa specie prima fronte rem consideranti affinitatem habere videbuntur cum magneticis attractionibus, non videntur praetermittandae.

The main part that's tripping me up is "quia tamen et nomine, et externa specie prima fronte rem consideranti affinitatem habere videbuntur cum..." where for the text in bold I can't figure out what applies where. Most often, consideranti is the dative present participle, but it's not impossible that it's the ablative form. But I can't see what it applies to, or if it's substantive? Then rem and affinitatem are both accusative but I don't know if there's an indirect statement with habere or if they both apply to habere, or if rem applies to consideranti, and so on.. The other part is the last clause, "non videntur pratermittandae", but I'm hoping that clarifying the first part will help me get a sense for the meaning.

I haven't been practicing Latin the last 6 months or so and only started learning about a year ago, so apologies for my novice-ness!

My best attempt at translation:

However much these sorts of attractions are beyond the magnetic nature; nevertheless they will be seen to have an affinity for the considerer (the person/thing considering) as with magnetic attractions both from the name and, at first glance from the outward appearance, they are not seen for the thing about to be passed over.

For context, Cabeo is distinguishing between magnetic attraction and electric attraction (the latter arising from materials like amber, when rubbed). The two were poorly distinguished until Cabeo's time, because they both seem like the same phenomenon (attraction at a distance).
The translation doesn't feel right, reading back the sentence in Latin and comparing the English. But I need a bit of help getting back on track!

 

[Pacifica]

Consideranti is dative, and it's substantive (meaning a person considering).

Rem is the object of consideranti.

Affinitatem is the object of habere.

Passive forms of video translate most of the time with the verb "seem".

You've left out quia.

Praetermittendae is nominative plural, referring to the attractiones.

 

[sjgallagher2]

Thanks that helps a lot. I'm still a bit lost on some points though, the use of gerundive praetermittendae for example. Assuming praetermitto to mean omit or neglect, so that the gerundive could mean "[the attractions] that ought to be omitted" or "[the attractions] to be omitted", but in the nominative, I don't know what the intended sense is there when used with the passive non videntur, they are not seen, they do not seem. Here's my working translation now:

For however much these sorts of attractions may be beyond the magnetic nature; still for one who considers the thing both from the name and, at first glance, from the outward appearance, they will seem to have an affinity like that of magnetic attractions, the attractions which ought to be omitted are not seen.

For quia I'm not sure what the intention is, especially combined with tamen, and coming after quamvis, so I've left it as "still", but I don't know how much it changes the sense. I'm sure I'm overanalyzing the sentence, but I'd like to understand why I have trouble reading it in Latin, as well as why it's hard for me to translate.

 

[Pacifica]

Here's a translation. I'll stay fairly literal so you can see the structure.

Quamvis enim extra magneticam naturam sint huiusmodi attractiones; quia tamen & nomine, & externa specie prima fronte rem consideranti affinitatem habere videbuntur cum magneticis attractionibus, non videntur praetermittandae.

For although these sorts of attractions are outside the magnetic nature, nevertheless, since they will seem, to someone considering the matter on the face of it, to have an affinity with magnetic attractions in both name and outward appearance, it does not seem that they should be omitted [here] (very literally: they do not seem having-to-be-omitted).

 

[sjgallagher2]

Thank you, I see what's going on now, the sentence makes much more sense that way haha. Appreciate the help.