Re: Translations from UK to US

Ron Hunter <rphunter@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
: Louis Epstein wrote:
:> 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!
:>
: Oh? There have been many, including changing 'a' to 'e' in some words,
: and leaving letters off some word endings. But then they didn't ask ME
: either....

Since 1948?
Anyway,I typically prefer more "old-fashioned" variants,
such as "mediaeval","encyclopaedia","catalogue"...

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

.

Quantcast