Thanks again, Ludophone.
Reading the Sable Feathers translation, I see that it, too, is incomplete, without saying that it is. It stops with Article V, leaving a rather large amount untranslated, including all the material on cartomancy. Fortunately we have the French and Tyson's translation online, as well as Karlin's book.
In the part of Gebelin's essay that Sable Feathers does translate, beyond Article I on the 22 trumps, there are not many errors, and they mostly are minor. At least it does not make the mistake of translating"rien" as "anything" (for what the Fool can take), as Tyson did. Some of these errors are obvious, even trivial, but some aren't. I am listing them here so that the translation can be corrected. I will leave a message to that effect on the site once I have waited a bit for comments here. (I am not bothering with the translation of Article I; there Tarotpedia's is the only one worth the time to correct.)
Here are the errors I see, disregarding some awkwardnesses:
"we call them Sword, Cups, Baton, Coin" should be "we call them Sword, Cup, Baton, Coin."Or else, preferably but less literally, make them all plural, as is done in the rest of the section.
"surmounted of a crown" should be "surmounted by a crown."
"Ace of Sticks" should be "Ace of Batons".
"il a l'air d'un Château" is not "it resembles a Castle." Cups and goblets do not resemble castles. I think it should be "it has the atmosphere of a Chateau".
"Etats" is not "casts" (or even "castes") but "Estates".
Then there is:
qu'il étoit devenu chez eux une formule à laquelle ils ramenoient les élémens de toutes les Sciences
which is not
it became for them a formula to which they brought back the elements of all the Sciences.
but
it became for them a formula by which they reduced the elements of all the Sciences.
As the translator points out, it is a reference to the Seven Liberal Arts.
Another is:
de réduire excessivement ce Jeu en leur faveur
which is not
to reduce this Game in their favor
but
to reduce this Game excessively in their favor.
"Jouer de coupes" is "cups player", not "Magician".
"sa baguette de Jacob ou sa verge des Mages is not "divining rod or Magus Rod" but "his rod of Jacob or his rod of the Mages."
"the reserve or the Dead" should be "the reserve or
Mort [Dead hand]". It is a technical term.
"Tarots par excellence" is not "Tarots preeminently" but either "Tarots par excellence", preferably, or "Preeminent Tarots".
For "Atous-tarots", "Ace-tarots" is confusing, as they are not aces. It should be left as "Atous-Tarots."
Then there is
L'ensemble des XXI ou XXII Atous, les XXII Lettres de l'Alphabet Egyptien commun aux Hébreux & aux Orientaux, & qui servant de chiffres, sont nécesaires pour tenir compte de l'ensemble de tant de contrées."
This is not
The whole of the XXI or XXII Trumps, the XXII letters of the Egyptian Alphabet common to the Hebrews and [Sanskrit] serve as [deciphering] letters necessary for the use by so many [diverse] regions.
Better would be
The whole of the XXI or XXII Trumps, the XXII letters of the Egyptian Alphabet common to the Hebrews and the Orientals, and which serve as numbers, are necessary to keep accounts from one to another among so many regions.
Then there is the sentence,
Un Roi coupé, ou mort, 5 points pour celui qui coupe.
which is not
A cut King or a dead one, 5 points for the one who cuts.
This should be
A King that is taken, or mort [dead], 5 points for the one who takes it.
Again an expression of the game.
There is also
Il doit sur tout se faire des renonces, afin de sauver ses fortes Cartes en coupant celles de son adversaire.
This is not
We must also renege, to save the strong Cards while cutting those of our adversary.
It should be:
One must above all achieve renounces, so as to save the strong Cards while taking those of one's adversary.
Alternatively "make for oneself" for "se faire". A "renounce", I think, is when one is void in a suit.
There are a couple of sections I'm not sure about First:
Joue-t-on un Roi, n'a-t-on pas la Dame, on met le Fou, ce qui s'appelle excuse.
Sable Feathers has,
If we play a King, and we do not have the Queen, we use the Fool, that is called excus.
Of course in English the word is "excuse", and the "ce qui" should be translated "which", not "that". But what does this sentence mean? If we play the King, we can't also play the Fool in that trick, of course. If someone else played the King, and we didn't have the Queen, why would we play the Fool at all? I can only think that it has to do with sequences. To use the King in a sequence King-Queen-Knight we would have to have the Fool to put in the middle, as he said before that the Fool has no value in himself, but only in combination with other cards. But Gebelin has not said what sequences count, so I don't know.
Another obscure one is this:
4. Ecart de celui qui donne
Celui qui donne ne peut écarter ni Atous ni Rois; il se seroit trop beau Jeu, puisqu'il se sauveroit sans péril. Tout ce qu'on lui permer en faveur de sa primauté, c'est d'écarter une séquence: car elle compte, & elle peut lui former une renonce, ce qui est un double avantage.
Sable Feathers has:
Laying cards down for the dealer
The dealer cannot lay Kings or Trumps; it would be too easy, since he could save himself without peril. For being first, he is only allowed to lay a sequence: because it counts and could produce a renege which will be a double advantage.
Tyson has:
Variation for the one who deals.
The one who deals can draw aside neither atouts nor Kings; it is too beautiful a game, since it is savage without danger. All that is permitted him in favor of his primacy, it is to draw aside a sequence: because it counts, and it forces the other to give it up, it is a double advantage..
Karlin has:
Dealer discards
The dealer can discard neither Kings nor Atouts; it would make the game too easy, since he would be able to save himself without danger. all that one can permit him in favor of his primacy, is to discard a sequence, because it counts and enables him to form a renounce, which is a double advantage.
The interpretation turns on the meaning of "écarter". WordReference says that in tarot games it means "discard." The only time Gebelin has mentioned when the dealer discards is immediately after the deal. If so, the sentence would mean he cannot discard from his hand Kings or Trumps. It remains to understand why discarding such valuable cards would be to give him unfair advantage. My guess is that it would keep them from falling into another player's hands, since the dealer gets the three cards he discarded at the end of play. If so, Karlin's translation is right. So is Sable Feathers', except that the terminology is wrong, "lay" instead of "discard" and "renege" instead of "renounce".