Re: Translations from UK to US

Louis Epstein wrote:
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.

Since I started school in 1950, yes. Somewhere along the line, there was a meeting of publishers, mainly newspapers, who had in mind standardizing many things that had been a bit haphazard in the past, and they also had in mind saving ink, so some things were changed, such as having a comma before the last item in a list, and where to put punctuation in a sentence containing a quotation (they made the WRONG CHOICE THERE), and even the size of the 'tail' on a comma. At the same time, the agreed on many minor spelling changes that simplified the usage, and, again, saved ink.
Sorry I don't recall just when that happened, but I think it was after 1961.
.