Re: Translations from UK to US

Ron Hunter <rphunter@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
: Thom-Madura wrote:
:> Ron Hunter wrote:
:>> Thom-Madura wrote:
:>>> Ron Hunter wrote:
:>>>> Thom-Madura wrote:
:>>>>> Barry Gray wrote:
:>>>>>> In message <1187678252.378495.94880@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
:>>>>>> Sirius Kase <SiriusKase@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:>>>>>>
:>>>>>>> On Aug 20, 7:25 pm, Thom-Madura <thommad...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:>>>>>>>> 4 - That JKR chose to make a version of her books for her
:>>>>>>>> largest and
:>>>>>>>> most profitable audience is not insulting. I would imagine that
:>>>>>>>> Brits
:>>>>>>>> would be insulted that she decided that he UK edition was
:>>>>>>>> inadequate for
:>>>>>>>> the US market.
:>>>>>>>>
:>>>>>>> Considering where most of the complaints are coming from, it is the
:>>>>>>> Brits who feel insulted that "their version" wasn't good enough.
:>>>>>>> Sour
:>>>>>>> grapes.
:>>>>>>>
:>>>>>> I do not read a lot of fiction by American authors, but it seems
:>>>>>> to me that whereas books by British authors are almost invariably
:>>>>>> also published in American editions, few books by American authors
:>>>>>> are published in British editions. Correct me, with examples, if I
:>>>>>> am wrong. (I am not of course talking about stories being retold.)
:>>>>>>
:>>>>>> Perhaps a good example of this is the National Geographic
:>>>>>> Magazine: the only difference between the British and U.S.
:>>>>>> editions is the advertisements, even in articles about Britain. I
:>>>>>> preferred it before there was a British edition.
:>>>>>>
:>>>>>>
:>>>>>>
:>>>>>
:>>>>> I continue to believe that a single version of each book COULD have
:>>>>> been produced that would have been OK for both markets.
:>>>>>
:>>>>> It is rare that there are American And British versions of books
:>>>>> written in either place. The problem here - of course - was that
:>>>>> the British First book was published before the American Version
:>>>>> was edited - I do not believe that Bloomsbury ever thought the book
:>>>>> would be as successful as it became - so they did not edit it with
:>>>>> BOTH markets in mind. I continue to wonder why they did not do so
:>>>>> with the later books - which could have been produced with only
:>>>>> one word change really (Sorceror/Philosopher).
:>>>>>
:>>>>
:>>>> Which versions of the spelling differences would you choose? What
:>>>> about food items, not understandable to Americans without research?
:>>>> Personally, I have no problem with either the British spellings, or
:>>>> the unusual food names, but some children are doubtless not quite as
:>>>> well-read as I am.
:>>>
:>>> Actually - unless there was a problem with the WORD based on the
:>>> spelling - I probably would not have changed it from British to
:>>> Proper American English since American Children are really smart and
:>>> can figure out these things out of context - including the foods.
:>>>
:>>
:>> I doubt that one could figure out what kippers or spotted *** are
:>> from context.
:>>
:>>> What I was referring to was the really arcane words and phrases -
:>>> such as SKIP or "Keep your pecker up". There are words common to
:>>> BOTH languages that could have been used in place of SKIP or JUMPER
:>>> (Etc) - AND - "Keep your pecker up" could have been written "Keep
:>>> your chin up" - which both would have understood. (The "pecker"
:>>> problem was unique in that it means "penis" in the US and would not
:>>> have passed review as a children's book with that phrase in it
:>>> obviously - even if context clearly implied what was meant)
:>>>
:>>> The reason why most British books do not have to be changed for the
:>>> American Market is because the Dialect normally used by writers in
:>>> the UK - Received British English - is an elite form (Used in
:>>> Colleges and on News reports - etc) - and generally relies less on
:>>> idioms and arcane expressions. The same applies to the other way
:>>> around - Standard American English - the writers dialect in the US -
:>>> does the same thing.
:>>> It is when the writers stray from the elite language that creates
:>>> problems - especially when context does not make the word or phrase
:>>> clear.
:>>
:>> I would prefer 'formal' to 'elite'. Negative connotation to 'elite'
:>> these days.
:>
:> I will use your term - although the Encyclopedia uses mine. My guess is
:> that they use the word elite because they are describing the language of
:> Higher Education (College- University) which at one time was elite -
:> although no as much so now.
:
: Like I said, bad connotations. Language changes, a lot, even in the
: span of one life. I won't bore you with the changes in spelling that
: have taken place in the US over the past 59 years since I began to read.

I consider it a compliment to be among the elite...and can't think
of a change in spelling that recent that I would acknowledge as
legitimate!

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
.

Quantcast