Re: Translations from UK to US

Bill Blakely wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 03:50:08 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

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?

I don't see it, Ron. I also don't think the comma is standard usage
in that case, either.

However, I do agree that British punctuation generally makes more
sense than American.


The ending punctuation for the sentence is, currently, supposed to be inside the quotation marks. This is simply WRONG. NOTHING belongs inside a set of quotation marks but the QUOTE. Changing the ending punctuation is downright illegal, as it changes the meaning of the item attributed to the author. Worse than plagiarism in my book.

I don't know just how British rules differ. I suspect that some of the changes made in the US weren't made in the UK, but nothing really drastic, I am sure.


: 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.


.