Re: Translations from UK to US

Louis Epstein wrote:
Ron Hunter <rphunter@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
: 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"...
:> :
: 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,

I support the serial comma (the comma before the "and").

: and where to put punctuation in a sentence containing a quotation : (they made the WRONG CHOICE THERE),

Never use the "new" way if it's wrong!!


I don't. Somehow the following makes me cringe:
Have you read that Patrick Henry said; "Give me liberty, or give me death?"
Sorta corrupts the meaning, doesn't it?

: and even the size of the 'tail' on a comma.

Huh?...that's fonts,not spelling.


Yes, but the whole idea was to save printing ink, which had gotten very expensive. Any little bit helps. They even reduced the size of the period a bit.


: 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.

Ignore them.
German is more regulated and the efforts to enforce change
haven't been well received there either.

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

.