Why UK & US Editions?
ROU Back to the Front
Can someone explain WHY there are (still) always (?) UK (+ australia,
etc) and USA (+ canada) editions produced. Does anything happen to turn
a USA edition into the UK release (apart from a new cover, which often
says 'not for sale in USA and Canada', or at least used to)?
I thought all the obscure copyright stuff was long since sorted ... is
it just a matter of lack of distribution channels, or is there some
obscure EEC rule (equivalent to straight bananas) or what??
How long before Internet bookshops (like Amazon) wipe out this nonsense?
(They don't seem to mind selling UK editions in USA and vice versa).
Surely it would be cheaper for all concerned to just produce ONE English
language version, and retail it across the planet - No?
--
ROU Back to the Front
Lawrence Watt-Evans
<R...@quik.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Can someone explain WHY there are (still) always (?) UK (+ australia,
>etc) and USA (+ canada) editions produced. Does anything happen to turn
>a USA edition into the UK release (apart from a new cover, which often
>says 'not for sale in USA and Canada', or at least used to)?
The punctuation gets converted, too -- Americans use double quotes
where Britishers use single, and vice versa.
>I thought all the obscure copyright stuff was long since sorted ... is
>it just a matter of lack of distribution channels, or is there some
>obscure EEC rule (equivalent to straight bananas) or what??
It's not copyright, exactly. It's a matter of trade agreements. The
English-speaking world is divided up into territories, and each
publishing contract specifies which territories the publisher has the
right to sell the book in.
Sometimes (for U.S. publishers) it's the world. More often it's
"North America," which arbitrarily includes a few other places -- the
Philippines, for example. Occasionally it's U.S.-only.
British publishers generally buy the rights to distribute throughout
the British Commonwealth.
And then some territories are "the open market," where one can sell
any edition legally.
>How long before Internet bookshops (like Amazon) wipe out this nonsense?
Who knows?
>Surely it would be cheaper for all concerned to just produce ONE English
>language version, and retail it across the planet - No?
Not significantly, really.
--
The Misenchanted Page: http://www.sff.net/people/LWE/ Last update 3/21/99
P Nielsen Hayden
<GntciAAmNA$2E...@quik.demon.co.uk>:
> Ok, maybe this is an FAQ, but I can't find it there, so here goes ..
>
> Can someone explain WHY there are (still) always (?) UK (+ australia,
> etc) and USA (+ canada) editions produced. Does anything happen to turn
> a USA edition into the UK release (apart from a new cover, which often
> says 'not for sale in USA and Canada', or at least used to)?
>
> I thought all the obscure copyright stuff was long since sorted ... is
> it just a matter of lack of distribution channels, or is there some
> obscure EEC rule (equivalent to straight bananas) or what??
There's no rule. It's a matter of commerce and competition.
For instance, we're an American publisher. Depending on what's on offer
from the author and his or her agent, what we feel like spending, and
whether we can come to an agreement, sometimes any of the following
happens:
(1) We buy world rights in all languages. We resell rights to local
publishers, if there's interest.
(2) We buy world rights in all languages. We sell our own edition
worldwide. (We are, after all, part of a worldwide conglomerate that has
at least some sales presence everywhere.)
(3) We buy world English-language rights. We resell UK-and-Commonwealth
rights to a British publisher.
(4) We buy World English-language rights. We sell our own edition in the
UK and the Commonwealth.
(5) We buy "North American" rights, including Canada. We only sell our
edition in North America.
There are lots of minor variations on the above. For instance, sometimes a
British publisher will manage to get exclusive Canadian rights, although
those usually get sold along with exclusive US rights. Generally,
exclusive Philippine rights get sold with US rights. Also, generally US
and UK publishers share the non-exclusive right to sell English-language
editions in Europe. And so forth.
But the point is that it doesn't have much to do with copyright, and it has
little or nothing to do with the law or the EU. It's a matter of what
rights "packages" are offered by authors and agents. By and large, most US
and UK publishers would be delighted to buy world English rights, or even
world rights.
> How long before Internet bookshops (like Amazon) wipe out this nonsense?
Good question.
> (They don't seem to mind selling UK editions in USA and vice versa).
In fact, watch for this to become a hot-button issue between US publishers,
UK publishers, and authors' agents.
--
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@panix.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh
Beth Haddrell
On Fri, 26 Mar 1999, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Mar 1999 22:00:06 +0000, ROU Back to the Front
> <R...@quik.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Can someone explain WHY there are (still) always (?) UK (+ australia,
> >etc) and USA (+ canada) editions produced. Does anything happen to turn
> >a USA edition into the UK release (apart from a new cover, which often
> >says 'not for sale in USA and Canada', or at least used to)?
>
> The punctuation gets converted, too -- Americans use double quotes
> where Britishers use single, and vice versa.
And in some cases, there are wholesale changes made to the text,
itself. The other day somebody posted a link to the current issue
of the Internet Writers Journal, which features an interview with Neil
Gaiman. In the interview, Gaiman notes that the US version of his novel
_Neverwhere_ is very different from the UK version: among other
differences, the US version contains additional information and details
(e.g., explaining the relationship between London's Oxford Street and
shopping) as well as changes of words (e.g., "pavement" in the UK
version..."sidewalk" in the US version). And yes, Gaiman did say that
some Americans complained about this -- feeling they (...um, we?) were
being condescended to -- but there ya go.
-Beth
Marcel
I live in the Netherlands and practically buy ALL my English books on-line.
Depending on which on-line seller I use I, more often than not, can choose
between ordering American or English versions. Sometimes there are very
significant price differences (American publications being cheaper, although
with English versions of the American hardcovers it is sometimes the other
way around).
So for on-line purchases this situation is a very satisfying one........
Marcel
ROU Back to the Front
you on 'the inside'. Hmm, wonder if I should get the EC to initiate a
competition investigation, since this all sounds suspiciously like
restraint of trade, local monopolies, cartels, and suchlike.
Just kidding .. we fired the EC commissioners last week, and they're all
busy with hormone infested beef, and dollar bananas anyway.
Guess the publishing world has some adjustment to do to cope with 'the
global market' Me, I'm gonna keep right on buying whichever edition is
first, cheapest, and the right size to fit my bookshelves (some
combination thereof, modified by how badly I want the book). Well, Ok,
it has to be in some reasonable language too, just in ase the Swahili
edition comes out first.
In article <8D95EAD...@news.panix.com>, P Nielsen Hayden
<p...@panix.com> writes
<snip>
>
>But the point is that it doesn't have much to do with copyright, and it has
>little or nothing to do with the law or the EU. It's a matter of what
>rights "packages" are offered by authors and agents. By and large, most US
>and UK publishers would be delighted to buy world English rights, or even
>world rights.
>
>> How long before Internet bookshops (like Amazon) wipe out this nonsense?
>
>Good question.
>
>> (They don't seem to mind selling UK editions in USA and vice versa).
>
>In fact, watch for this to become a hot-button issue between US publishers,
>UK publishers, and authors' agents.
>
--
Andrew Plotkin
> ROU Back to the Front <R...@quik.demon.co.uk> wrote in
> <GntciAAmNA$2E...@quik.demon.co.uk>:
> > Can someone explain WHY there are (still) always (?) UK (+ australia,
> > etc) and USA (+ canada) editions produced. Does anything happen to turn
> > a USA edition into the UK release (apart from a new cover, which often
> > says 'not for sale in USA and Canada', or at least used to)?
> > [...]
> There's no rule. It's a matter of commerce and competition.
> For instance, we're an American publisher. Depending on what's on offer
> from the author and his or her agent, what we feel like spending, and
> whether we can come to an agreement, sometimes any of the following
> happens:
[...list of possibilities...]
> But the point is that it doesn't have much to do with copyright, and it has
> little or nothing to do with the law or the EU. It's a matter of what
> rights "packages" are offered by authors and agents. By and large, most US
> and UK publishers would be delighted to buy world English rights, or even
> world rights.
Aha. Thanks; I had been vaguely wondering about this too. (Particularly
after visiting Canada, and seeing a mix of familiar and unfamiliar
publishers on the shelves.)
> > How long before Internet bookshops (like Amazon) wipe out this nonsense?
>
> Good question.
>
> > (They don't seem to mind selling UK editions in USA and vice versa).
>
> In fact, watch for this to become a hot-button issue between US publishers,
> UK publishers, and authors' agents.
Hm. Hot-button in which direction? Who has interests in the current
system? You say the publishers would generally be happy to sell their
books worldwide. I, as a customer, would certainly rather have my
bookstores stock books from authors worldwide, rather than having to order
on-line for UK editions.
Is it that authors or agents like things the way they are? (I can't
imagine an author saying "Gosh, it's a good thing my books aren't on sale
in the US." But, of course, I have no idea how the business works.)
Is this (partly) a legacy matter, from the days when publishers and
distributors weren't so amazingly consolidated, lumped-together, and owned
by multinational conglomerates?
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the
borogoves..."
P Nielsen Hayden
<erkyrathF...@netcom.com>:
>P Nielsen Hayden (p...@panix.com) wrote:
>> ROU Back to the Front <R...@quik.demon.co.uk> wrote in
>> <GntciAAmNA$2E...@quik.demon.co.uk>:
>> > How long before Internet bookshops (like Amazon) wipe out this
>> > nonsense?
>>
>> Good question.
>>
>> > (They don't seem to mind selling UK editions in USA and vice versa).
>>
>> In fact, watch for this to become a hot-button issue between US
>> publishers, UK publishers, and authors' agents.
>
>Hm. Hot-button in which direction?
I mean that UK publishers don't like being undercut by cheaper American
editions available through Amazon and other online booksellers, and vice
versa. The number of copies of the other publisher's edition sold in one's
supposedly-exclusive territory used to be negligible. It's getting less
so.
I suspect that when publishers feel sufficiently strongly about this, they
will start pushing harder to do world-rights deals. And the publishers
with truly international sales organizations will tend to do better.
>Who has interests in the current
>system? You say the publishers would generally be happy to sell their
>books worldwide. I, as a customer, would certainly rather have my
>bookstores stock books from authors worldwide, rather than having to
>order on-line for UK editions.
>
>Is it that authors or agents like things the way they are?
Agents don't tend to sell a single publisher world rights if they think
they can get more money overall by doing separate deals with publishers in
the US and the UK.
>(I can't
>imagine an author saying "Gosh, it's a good thing my books aren't on
>sale in the US."
Indeed not. But I can easily imagine (say) a British author sensibly
refusing to sell his British publisher world English rights, because he'd
rather sell US rights to a US publisher (which would have, after all,
better US distribution) -- and being frustrated because it took a long time
to get up any actual US interest.
>Is this (partly) a legacy matter, from the days when publishers and
>distributors weren't so amazingly consolidated, lumped-together, and
>owned by multinational conglomerates?
Don't overestimate the importance of all that fabulous multinational
synergy. Lots of houses are part of big conglomerates with holdings in
both the US and the UK, but in general there's a lot less useful
coordination than you might think.
Julio Jorge Viterbo Dias
>
> Good question.
Yes, that's a very good question and I have a thing to add:
I'm from Portugal (Portuguese is our language not English) and, yet, I've
bought books from amazon.com in US and amazon.co.uk in UK. All this books
were in English and were sent directly to me in Portugal. They never refused
to sell based in copyright, territories or else. I always got what I wanted.
Some of the books were later available in Portuguese. That means the rights
were sold to a Portuguese publisher.
Julio Jorge Viterbo Dias
Being able to buy on-line any version of a books, Uk or USA, is very good to
me because in my country the science fiction field isn't very developed and
if it wasn't for the on-line bookstores I wouldn't have read some of the
latest good science fiction books. Well, in the last six months I've only
read science fiction in English.
If it weren't for the bookstores I would be in a dry run.
Julio Jorge Viterbo Dias <jjvite...@mail.telepac.pt> wrote in message
news:7dmdl3$k9m$1...@duke.telepac.pt...
Alison Scott
>How long before Internet bookshops (like Amazon) wipe out this nonsense?
>(They don't seem to mind selling UK editions in USA and vice versa).
>Surely it would be cheaper for all concerned to just produce ONE English
>language version, and retail it across the planet - No?
Just as a data point: amazon.co.uk has stopped selling the Tor edition
of _A Deepness in the Sky_. I don't know what's happened on this
occasion - but I do know of previous instances when UK specialist
bookshops have been discouraged from selling US editions of
high-profile new books when the UK rights had been sold but the book
had not yet appeared.
--
Alison Scott ali...@fuggles.demon.co.uk & www.fuggles.demon.co.uk
Multiple award-losing fanzine: www.plokta.com/plokta
News and views for SF fans: www.plokta.com/pnn
ROU Back to the Front
we can persuade PNH to smuggle some into the UK for us! Otherwise I
guess we just have to gang up and order a dozen from Amazon.com, and
split the ruinous international postage charge!
In article <37054134....@news.demon.co.uk>, Alison Scott
<ali...@fuggles.demon.co.uk> writes
<snip>
>Just as a data point: amazon.co.uk has stopped selling the Tor edition
>of _A Deepness in the Sky_. I don't know what's happened on this
>occasion - but I do know of previous instances when UK specialist
>bookshops have been discouraged from selling US editions of
>high-profile new books when the UK rights had been sold but the book
>had not yet appeared.
>
--
Matthew Malthouse
} ROU Back to the Front <R...@quik.demon.co.uk> wrote:
}
} >How long before Internet bookshops (like Amazon) wipe out this nonsense?
} >(They don't seem to mind selling UK editions in USA and vice versa).
} >Surely it would be cheaper for all concerned to just produce ONE English
} >language version, and retail it across the planet - No?
}
} of _A Deepness in the Sky_. I don't know what's happened on this
} occasion - but I do know of previous instances when UK specialist
} bookshops have been discouraged from selling US editions of
} high-profile new books when the UK rights had been sold but the book
} had not yet appeared.
The case law I'm aware of (and note that it's almost a decade since I
worked directly in the field) runs thusly:
If the rights for North America have been sold and a book published
the UK retailers may import individual copies to satisfy a
purchaser's request but to import stock to put on the shelves would
compromise the author's rights in the UK and he, or a publisher
which has bought those rights, might sue for consequential losses.
The specialist bookshops that put US editions on their shelves when
a UK edition is imminent (eg A Crown Of Swords[0]) could find themselves
liable.
If the case law remains unchanged then an online seller shuch as
Amazon UK might have decided, or been advised that carrying and
advertising US edition puts them in the same position as a high
street retailer.
I would guess that, if this is indeed the case, you could trace
the details of a US edition on Amazon US and quite legitimately
request that mazon UK supply it to you.
I'd be quite interested to know if my knowledge of the area has
been superceded by any more recent developments?
Matthew
[0] I saw at the weekend that the UK ed of ACoS has reached the
remaindered bookshops - in quantity. :)
--
A banker is a fellow who lends you his umbrella when the sun is shining
and wants it back the minute it begins to rain.
-- Mark Twain
http://www.calmeilles.demon.co.uk
sarah
(snip)
>
> I would guess that, if this is indeed the case, you could trace
> the details of a US edition on Amazon US and quite legitimately
> request that mazon UK supply it to you.
FWIW I've started buying US editions from Amazon.com and shipping here
with no problems[1], even/especially when Amazon.co.uk gave messages
along the lines of 'unavailable in UK'. The snailrate shipping is less
than the cost of a trip to London in the hope that Forbidden Planet has
them in stock. ie 6 vols total charge inc shipping 43.64USD, charged c.
27UKP on VISA.
And the arrival of the parcel *really* makes my day a month or so later!
regards
sarah
[1] I may have blown it with the current one, though... finally
remembered to look for John McPhee's geology books. Are books
VATable/subject to duty on import to UK for personal use?
--
Remove duplicate. to reply via email.
------------------------------------------------------------
'Think of it as evolution in action' Niven/Pournelle
ROU Back to the Front
put them to. You can even burn them, without incurring the 5% fuel duty!
I regularly ship in a box-load from LoneStar books/comics in Dallas, and
it is still cheaper than buying in UK. Last set came 'surface mail' and
took about 8 weeks (over Xmas). Previous box cost 3x as much in
shipping, but came US postal 'special service' or whatever it was called
- took 4 days, beating my local UK bookshop by 3 weeks, and with
Internet tracking all the way.
If only the HTP (Hardware Transfer Protocol) would work!
D.
In article <1dphfcf.164...@amitiel.demon.co.uk>, sarah
<swr...@copy.amitiel.demon.co.uk> writes
<snip>
>
>[1] I may have blown it with the current one, though... finally
>remembered to look for John McPhee's geology books. Are books
>VATable/subject to duty on import to UK for personal use?
>
--
sarah
> No, books are free of VAT, and customs duty, regardless of the use you
> put them to. You can even burn them, without incurring the 5% fuel duty!
That's a relief... I've just had an email to say they're on the way!
> I regularly ship in a box-load from LoneStar books/comics in Dallas, and
> it is still cheaper than buying in UK. Last set came 'surface mail' and
> took about 8 weeks (over Xmas). Previous box cost 3x as much in
> shipping, but came US postal 'special service' or whatever it was called
> - took 4 days, beating my local UK bookshop by 3 weeks, and with
> Internet tracking all the way.
Every once in a while I stop and wonder how I coped without internet
bookbuying/email/computers. I can remember my first calculator (c.1975)
- v. special/expensive 'cos it did square roots. It was about 4x the
size of my Palm V. Any votes for what we/I'll be taking for granted in
another 20 years time?
> If only the HTP (Hardware Transfer Protocol) would work!
Matter transmitters, that's what we need.
regards
sarah
Asia2000
: > <GntciAAmNA$2E...@quik.demon.co.uk>:
: > > Can someone explain WHY there are (still) always (?) UK (+ australia,
: > > etc) and USA (+ canada) editions produced. Does anything happen to turn
: > > a USA edition into the UK release (apart from a new cover, which often
: > > says 'not for sale in USA and Canada', or at least used to)?
The main reason is that the publishing world is traditionally divided into
British Commonwealth and US zones. British publishers had major interests
in Canada, Australia, so they would be able to sell directly in these
markets. These patterns of ownership are changing, though.
A secondary reason is that American and UK English are different
languages.
You will note if you compare US and UK editions that, unless they're small
publishers cutting corners and just changing the cover, that the UK
edition uses speech in single quotes, `like this', and the US version uses
double quotes "like this". And there are the usual spelling changes
color/colour, -ise/-ize, etc.
Kate Nepveu
> A secondary reason is that American and UK English are different
> languages.
> You will note if you compare US and UK editions that, unless they're small
> publishers cutting corners and just changing the cover, that the UK
> edition uses speech in single quotes, `like this', and the US version uses
> double quotes "like this". And there are the usual spelling changes
> color/colour, -ise/-ize, etc.
And, in the case of Terry Pratchett's _Hogfather_, changing the
dedication (why I have no idea), changing "fag ash" to "cigarette
ash," having Susan sit down on a bed twice in the same conversation
without having got up first, and mucking up formatting so that some
internal thoughts get treated as dialogue...
Oh, and giving it a really hideous cover.
(I needed a Pratchett fix, and my UK paperback was unavailable, so I
got the US edition out of the library. Odd experience; I don't
recommend it.)
Kate
--
http://www.concentric.net/~knepveu/ - The Paired Reading Page; Reviews
"Sometimes a scream is better than a thesis." | * Updated 4/4/99 *
--Ralph Waldo Emerson | * with new pairs *
Lawrence Watt-Evans
(Asia2000) wrote:
>A secondary reason is that American and UK English are different
>languages.
>
>You will note if you compare US and UK editions that, unless they're small
>publishers cutting corners and just changing the cover, that the UK
>edition uses speech in single quotes, `like this', and the US version uses
>double quotes "like this". And there are the usual spelling changes
>color/colour, -ise/-ize, etc.
Except they don't always bother changing the spelling. I forget which
it was, but I remember noticing that at least one British edition of
my work had British punctuation with American spelling, which looked
rather odd.
Nora
>
> sarg...@tree.gateway.net.hk (Asia2000) wrote:
>
> > A secondary reason is that American and UK English are different
> > languages.
>
> > You will note if you compare US and UK editions that, unless they're small
> > publishers cutting corners and just changing the cover, that the UK
> > edition uses speech in single quotes, `like this', and the US version uses
> > double quotes "like this". And there are the usual spelling changes
> > color/colour, -ise/-ize, etc.
>
> dedication (why I have no idea), changing "fag ash" to "cigarette
> ash," having Susan sit down on a bed twice in the same conversation
> without having got up first, and mucking up formatting so that some
> internal thoughts get treated as dialogue...
I don't know about the other changes, but the 'fag/cigarette' change
makes sense; in America 'fag' is a derogatory epithet for a homosexual
man. While one would *think* that a well-read fan would know the
difference, publishers here aim for the least common denominator.
Nora
______________________
njem...@the-spa.com (remove "nospam" for reply)
Mirai's World (DB and Bakuretsu Hunter fanfiction, Yaoi and Shounen Ai
manga reviews and excerpts, fanfiction writing resources)
http://www.the-spa.com/njemison
Kate Nepveu
> Kate Nepveu wrote:
> > And, in the case of Terry Pratchett's _Hogfather_, changing the
> > dedication (why I have no idea), changing "fag ash" to "cigarette
> > ash,"
> I don't know about the other changes, but the 'fag/cigarette' change
> makes sense;
Oh sure, I know that, and that's the only change they made that is
understandable. The others are either errors or inexplicable (the
dedication).
Carol Flynt
arg...@tree.gateway.net.hk (Asia2000) wrote:
>You will note if you compare US and UK editions that,
>unless they're small publishers cutting corners and
>just changing the cover, that the UK edition uses speech
>in single quotes, `like this', and the US version uses double
>quotes "like this". And there are the usual spelling changes
>color/colour, -ise/-ize, etc.
And sometimes whole word changes.
Growing up in Spain I attended a private American school.
Back then, private schools were not under the DOD
umbrella, so we didn't get supplies and things easily
from the States, As a result, while most of our textbooks
were from the States, most of the fiction books we
read were Penguin editions, either through the school
or bought personally. In my family, we treated ourselves
annually to a trip to London, so we could speak a form of
English for a while, and bought books like mad.
As a result, most of the kids in the school had a terrible
time with spelling - we kept jumbling together the English
and American spellings. To this day I tend to go back and
forth, unless I'm being very careful to check myself.
One year a brand new teacher arrived from the States who
was driven crazy by our spelling of "judgement" for
"judgment." She came in one morning, wrote the American
spelling of the word in huge letters on the board and
insisted in a I've-had-it-up-to-here voice that there is
only one e in "judgment," and she'd flunk the next one who
mispelled it. The class sat in stunned silence.
She softened after I went up to her and explained that we
kept seeing the word spelled differently. She fought until
I told her that in my books, Perry Mason stopped for petrol,
and found bodies in the boots of cars.
I'm not sure which of us learned more that year - the teacher
or the class.
Carol (It was quite a year, as I remember) Flynt
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| PREFERRED EMAIL ADDRESS: ca...@cflynt.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Goodman
Lawrence Watt-Evans <lawr...@clark.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 8 Apr 1999 17:28:23 +0800, sarg...@tree.gateway.net.hk
>(Asia2000) wrote:
>
>>A secondary reason is that American and UK English are different
>>languages.
>>
>>publishers cutting corners and just changing the cover, that the UK
>>edition uses speech in single quotes, `like this', and the US version uses
>>double quotes "like this". And there are the usual spelling changes
>>color/colour, -ise/-ize, etc.
>
>it was, but I remember noticing that at least one British edition of
>my work had British punctuation with American spelling, which looked
>rather odd.
The US edition of Diana Wynne Jones's _Deep Secret_ (from Tor) uses
British punctuation. I didn't notice this till I came to a "Mrs".
--
Dan Goodman
dsg...@visi.com
http://www.visi.com/~dsgood/index.html
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
Rich Horton
>One year a brand new teacher arrived from the States who
>was driven crazy by our spelling of "judgement" for
>"judgment." She came in one morning, wrote the American
>spelling of the word in huge letters on the board and
>insisted in a I've-had-it-up-to-here voice that there is
>only one e in "judgment," and she'd flunk the next one who
>mispelled it. The class sat in stunned silence.
I've always spelled "judgement" with two "e"s. I checked my
dictionary, and it gave both alternatives. I wonder if this is a
recent change? (I'm American.)
(And I suppose it would be just vile to ask you how many "s"s there
are in the English spelling of "misspelled"? (<g> Sorry, couldn't
resist.) (Lord knows how many typos there are in my post!))
--
Rich Horton
Homepage: www.sff.net/people/richard.horton
Visit Tangent Online (www.sfsite.com/tangent) for timely reviews of SF short fiction
Carol Flynt
rrho...@concentric.net (Rich Horton) wrote:
>I've always spelled "judgement" with two "e"s. I checked my
>dictionary, and it gave both alternatives. I wonder if this is a
>recent change? (I'm American.)
Hmmm. Depends. Define "recent."
My story took place in, erm ...(counting on her fingers)
... 1969. As I remember, at the time our Webster's Collegiate
did not list the alternate. The dictionary I have now does.
>(And I suppose it would be just vile to ask you how many "s"s there
>are in the English spelling of "misspelled"? (<g> Sorry, couldn't
>resist.) (Lord knows how many typos there are in my post!))
Sigh. No, not vile. I can quite understand the temptation
was simply too great for any human, let alone someone who
reads SF, to let it pass.
Can I plead the excuse that I'm home sick - or I wouldn't have
so much time to be posting, anyway?
Carol (Who knows perfectly well that she simply didn't
proof her post, but really is sick) Flynt
Jay Random
>
> On Thu, 8 Apr 1999 17:28:23 +0800, sarg...@tree.gateway.net.hk
> (Asia2000) wrote:
>
> >A secondary reason is that American and UK English are different
> >languages.
> >
> >You will note if you compare US and UK editions that, unless they're small
> >publishers cutting corners and just changing the cover, that the UK
> >edition uses speech in single quotes, `like this', and the US version uses
> >double quotes "like this". And there are the usual spelling changes
> >color/colour, -ise/-ize, etc.
>
> Except they don't always bother changing the spelling. I forget which
> it was, but I remember noticing that at least one British edition of
> my work had British punctuation with American spelling, which looked
> rather odd.
Perhaps they did it in a vain attempt to make people think you were James A.
Michener. His books, at any rate in the American paperback editions, use
single quotation marks & various other typographical Britannicisms, but
American spellings.
Jay Random
>
> The US edition of Diana Wynne Jones's _Deep Secret_ (from Tor) uses
> British punctuation. I didn't notice this till I came to a "Mrs".
Ironically, the UK edition (& manuscript) of LOTR conforms to the American
usage for abbreviations, by spelling `Mr.' with a period.
`Coming, Mr. Frodo!' said Sam.
Rich Horton
>Hmmm. Depends. Define "recent."
>
>My story took place in, erm ...(counting on her fingers)
>... 1969. As I remember, at the time our Webster's Collegiate
>did not list the alternate. The dictionary I have now does.
I was born in 1959, so I doubt I was taking much notice of the
spelling of judgement in 1969. That would work. I have a 1974
American Heritage Collegiate Dictionary at work, I'll check it. The
thing is, "judgment" looks funny to me: it makes me think the g might
be hard. I'm glad "judgement" is an acceptable alternative, otherwise
I suspect I'd misspell it.
Jay Random
>
> On 8 Apr 1999 23:50:34 -0400, cl...@msen.com (Carol Flynt) wrote:
>
> >Hmmm. Depends. Define "recent."
> >
> >My story took place in, erm ...(counting on her fingers)
> >... 1969. As I remember, at the time our Webster's Collegiate
> >did not list the alternate. The dictionary I have now does.
>
> I was born in 1959, so I doubt I was taking much notice of the
> spelling of judgement in 1969. That would work. I have a 1974
> American Heritage Collegiate Dictionary at work, I'll check it. The
> thing is, "judgment" looks funny to me: it makes me think the g might
> be hard. I'm glad "judgement" is an acceptable alternative, otherwise
> I suspect I'd misspell it.
FWIW, I've had English teachers mark me wrong on spelling tests with _both_
spellings. Right annoyed me, that did.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
wrote:
>Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
>>
>> Except they don't always bother changing the spelling. I forget which
>> it was, but I remember noticing that at least one British edition of
>> my work had British punctuation with American spelling, which looked
>> rather odd.
>
>Perhaps they did it in a vain attempt to make people think you were James A.
>Michener. His books, at any rate in the American paperback editions, use
>single quotation marks & various other typographical Britannicisms, but
>American spellings.
I tend to think it was instead a successful attempt to save a few
bucks in typesetting.
Dan Goodman
That might be house style.
Robert Pearlman
>On Thu, 8 Apr 1999 17:28:23 +0800, sarg...@tree.gateway.net.hk
>(Asia2000) wrote:
>
>>A secondary reason is that American and UK English are different
>>languages.
>>
>>You will note if you compare US and UK editions that, unless they're small
>>publishers cutting corners and just changing the cover, that the UK
>>edition uses speech in single quotes, `like this', and the US version uses
>>double quotes "like this". And there are the usual spelling changes
>>color/colour, -ise/-ize, etc.
>
>Except they don't always bother changing the spelling. I forget which
>it was, but I remember noticing that at least one British edition of
>my work had British punctuation with American spelling, which looked
>rather odd.
The British often use "on-side" and "off-side" for the right and left
sides of a car, or perhaps for the left and right sides. I've never
seen this usage translated and I still don't know which is which.
I suppose it comes from horses, but when I've been riding in the U.S.
they tell us to get both on and off on the left side.
--
Pearlman
Robert Pearlman
>On 8 Apr 1999 23:50:34 -0400, cl...@msen.com (Carol Flynt) wrote:
>
>>Hmmm. Depends. Define "recent."
>>
>>My story took place in, erm ...(counting on her fingers)
>>... 1969. As I remember, at the time our Webster's Collegiate
>>did not list the alternate. The dictionary I have now does.
>
>I was born in 1959, so I doubt I was taking much notice of the
>spelling of judgement in 1969. That would work. I have a 1974
>American Heritage Collegiate Dictionary at work, I'll check it. The
>thing is, "judgment" looks funny to me: it makes me think the g might
>be hard. I'm glad "judgement" is an acceptable alternative, otherwise
>I suspect I'd misspell it.
How do you pronounce a hard 'g' between "dg" and 'm'? I think I'd
need a tracheotomy.
--
Pearlman
Bruce Sterling Woodcock
>
> On 8 Apr 1999 23:50:34 -0400, cl...@msen.com (Carol Flynt) wrote:
>
> >Hmmm. Depends. Define "recent."
> >
> >My story took place in, erm ...(counting on her fingers)
> >... 1969. As I remember, at the time our Webster's Collegiate
> >did not list the alternate. The dictionary I have now does.
>
> I was born in 1959, so I doubt I was taking much notice of the
> spelling of judgement in 1969.
I was born in 1970 and learned to spell it as "judgement" as well.
How about grey vs. gray? Is that a UK/US thing, or has it become purely
stylistic? (I prefer grey; I hopy copyeditors can respect that.)
Oddest US-> UK difference I know of: maneuver -> manoeuvre
Bruce
Martin Soederstroem
in the creation of a novel. One type of editor tells the author to
write a happier ending and include more sex scenes. (I realize they
usually have more sensible advise.) Another checks the spelling and
punctuation. There are probably even more who do things I don't know
about. Do these people get compensated when an overseas publisher
publishes the novel? Does the original publisher? Does the new
publisher have to work from unproofread manuscripts? Or does the
author reap the entire bounty?
--
Martin
Remove NOSPAM to reply
William Burns
<sirb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>How about grey vs. gray? Is that a UK/US thing, or has it become purely
>stylistic? (I prefer grey; I hopy copyeditors can respect that.)
Both versions are correct in Canada. Have been since I don't know
when. Just be consistent throughout. Though if writing about
Zane Grey, 'gray' might better be used to differentiate between name
and hue. :-)
>Oddest US-> UK difference I know of: maneuver -> manoeuvre
And the odd part is, neither is really correct. The 'oe' should be
squeezed together to make one letter. Something I can't do on this
newsreader.
It's 'judgement', btw. The other spelling is an American encroachment
brought on by hiring teachers from south of the border.
-- William
Year 2000: 267 Days To Go.
MollyMolo
<sirb...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>How about grey vs. gray? Is that a UK/US thing, or has it become purely
>stylistic? (I prefer grey; I hopy copyeditors can respect that.)
>
My [U.S.] dictionary (Random House Webster's) says that both are acceptable,
but seems to prefer "gray" over "grey."
--
Molly
Xian Schlubach
The British spelling reflects the french etyma of the word: oeuvre
(Lat. operare) much like we see in hors d'oeuvre (outside the work).
I'm not an expert but the morphemic changes (ie the lost 'o' and
transposed 're') seem pretty typical of ME and Fr loanwords.
A word that I've always found strange is 'shank,' which can mean:
o the latter part of a period of time
o the early part of a period of time
o the main part of a period of time
So, if I said that an event occured during the shank of the Weimar era
(for example) how would you know how to interpret my meaning?...
Sorry for the digression. :)
cheers,
xian
Rich Horton
Pearlman) wrote:
>rrho...@concentric.net (Rich Horton) wrote:
>
>>On 8 Apr 1999 23:50:34 -0400, cl...@msen.com (Carol Flynt) wrote:
>>
>>>Hmmm. Depends. Define "recent."
>>>
>>>My story took place in, erm ...(counting on her fingers)
>>>... 1969. As I remember, at the time our Webster's Collegiate
>>>did not list the alternate. The dictionary I have now does.
>>
>>I was born in 1959, so I doubt I was taking much notice of the
>>spelling of judgement in 1969. That would work. I have a 1974
>>American Heritage Collegiate Dictionary at work, I'll check it. The
>>thing is, "judgment" looks funny to me: it makes me think the g might
>>be hard. I'm glad "judgement" is an acceptable alternative, otherwise
>>I suspect I'd misspell it.
>
>How do you pronounce a hard 'g' between "dg" and 'm'? I think I'd
>need a tracheotomy.
I don't think it's all =that= hard. Granted, there is a very brief
sort of schwa between the g and the m sounds.
But what I really meant was that when I see the word spelled
"judgment" I think it might be a hard "g", and I know that can't be
correct - because I don't want you to have to get a tracheotomy. <g>
Oh, and I think both gray and grey are correct, for slightly different
colors (er, colours?). <g>
And my 1974 Amer. Heritage Collegiate Dictionary says "judgment. also
judgement.", implying that the former might be preferred, or more
common, but that either is acceptable.
Caedmon Parsons
<sirb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Rich Horton wrote:
>>
>> On 8 Apr 1999 23:50:34 -0400, cl...@msen.com (Carol Flynt) wrote:
>> >My story took place in, erm ...(counting on her fingers)
>> >... 1969. As I remember, at the time our Webster's Collegiate
>> >did not list the alternate. The dictionary I have now does.
>>
>> I was born in 1959, so I doubt I was taking much notice of the
>> spelling of judgement in 1969.
>
>I was born in 1970 and learned to spell it as "judgement" as well.
I was also born in 1970. I spelled it 'judgement' and had no idea that
was an issue until I arrived at graduate school when the word seemed
to appear in every paper I wrote for one English professor (in his
40s; I had two classes with him, and he was my thesis director)--and
he marked it every time.
After the Master's I went to the University of Toronto for doctoral
work where it didn't matter.
>
>How about grey vs. gray? Is that a UK/US thing, or has it become purely
>stylistic? (I prefer grey; I hopy copyeditors can respect that.)
I spell it grey. My MS word spell-checker insists only gray is
correct, so I just let it fix that automatically.
>
Caedmon
Birth or Death? There was a Birth, certainly,
We had evidence and no doubt. I had seen birth and death,
But had thought they were different; this Birth was
Hard and bitter agony for us, like Death, our death.
--T.S. Eliot
Alison Scott
>The British often use "on-side" and "off-side" for the right and left
>sides of a car, or perhaps for the left and right sides.
Untrue.
--
Alison Scott ali...@fuggles.demon.co.uk & www.fuggles.demon.co.uk
Multiple award-losing fanzine: www.moose.demon.co.uk/plokta
News and views for SF fans: www.plokta.com/pnn
GSV Larger than Life
asserted
>rpea...@pipeline.com (Robert Pearlman) wrote:
>
>>The British often use "on-side" and "off-side" for the right and left
>>sides of a car, or perhaps for the left and right sides.
>
>Untrue.
'Partially incorrect' you mean, Alison! We do use 'off side' when
referring to cars (as in o/s/r tyre, for off side rear). Never seen it
used apart from on the road. Off-side in football (soccer) has a whole
new meaning which we don't want to get into, or the 'off topic
netiquette' referees (umpires) will be after us. fwiw, afaik, 'offside'
is the right (on a car), referenced to the kerb/pavement (aka sidewalk).
>
>
GSV Larger than Life
(ROU 'Back to the Front' is currently Engaged, iykwim)
C.S. Youd
It's always been a problem. When Ann Durell was (superbly) editing
Children's Books at Dutton, she established a policy of textual editing
according to the writer's country of origin -- and I suddenly found "colour"
replacing " color". I don't think it survived her retirement.
We Europeans are generally more tolerant of the (minor) differences, I feel.
As the Scythians probably were of Rome.
John Christopher
P Nielsen Hayden
<7eqh5h$anh$1...@newnews.global.net.uk>:
Good gracious, is this really the author of the White Mountains trilogy
posting here to rasfw? Welcome.
--
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@panix.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh
Elisabeth Carey
>
> 11/3/99
>
> It's always been a problem. When Ann Durell was (superbly) editing
> Children's Books at Dutton, she established a policy of textual editing
> according to the writer's country of origin -- and I suddenly found "colour"
> replacing " color". I don't think it survived her retirement.
> We Europeans are generally more tolerant of the (minor) differences, I feel.
> As the Scythians probably were of Rome.
British classics used in the schools I attended were nearly always the
Penguin editions, with the spelling and vocabulary completely
untouched. This was also often the case in hardcover editions of
British children's books, whether my parents bought them for me or I
found them at the library.
These days, some publishers seem to believe that Americanizing the
spelling is important, and others seem to believe it's not. I've seen
it both ways.
I'm not sure how much _more_ tolerant Europeans could be than
Americans in this regard, given how familiar I was by age ten with
British spelling and the differences between American and British
vocabulary.
> John Christopher
If you're truly the author of the Tripods trilogy, well, I'll limit
myself to saying, I loved those books.
Lis Carey
Rich Horton
>C.S. Youd <sa...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote in
><7eqh5h$anh$1...@newnews.global.net.uk>:
>
>>11/3/99
>>
>>It's always been a problem. When Ann Durell was (superbly) editing
>>Children's Books at Dutton, she established a policy of textual editing
>>according to the writer's country of origin -- and I suddenly found
>>"colour" replacing " color". I don't think it survived her retirement.
>>We Europeans are generally more tolerant of the (minor) differences, I
>>feel. As the Scythians probably were of Rome.
>>John Christopher
>
>Good gracious, is this really the author of the White Mountains trilogy
>posting here to rasfw? Welcome.
The name C. S. Youd really tickled a deep memory in my brain. And
then I skimmed over the "John Christopher" at the end. Doh! But,
yes, welcome! The White Mountains books were favorites of mine, as
well as The Prince in Waiting and sequels.
David Given
wbu...@cancom.net (William Burns) writes:
[...]
> It's 'judgement', btw. The other spelling is an American encroachment
> brought on by hiring teachers from south of the border.
Isn't `potato' spelt with an `e' in America?
--
+- David Given ---------------McQ-+ "If you're up against someone more
| Work: d...@tao-group.com | intelligent than you are, do something
| Play: dgi...@iname.com | insane and let him think himself to death."
+- http://wired.st-and.ac.uk/~dg -+ --- Pyanfar Chanur
MollyMolo
>> It's 'judgement', btw. The other spelling is an American encroachment
>> brought on by hiring teachers from south of the border.
>
>Isn't `potato' spelt with an `e' in America?
>
LOL. Only if you're Dan Quayle.
--
Molly
William Burns
>Isn't `potato' spelt with an `e' in America?
IAW my American dictionary, no.
-- William
Year 2000: 264 Days To Go.
John Lorentz
wrote:
>In article <94vse7...@pearl.tao.co.uk>, d...@tao.co.uk (David Given) writes:
>
>>> It's 'judgement', btw. The other spelling is an American encroachment
>>> brought on by hiring teachers from south of the border.
>>
>>Isn't `potato' spelt with an `e' in America?
>>
>
>LOL. Only if you're Dan Quayle.
>--
Isn't that 'Quayl'?
Dorothy J Heydt
>In article <370e8501...@newsread.cancom.net>,
> wbu...@cancom.net (William Burns) writes:
>[...]
>> brought on by hiring teachers from south of the border.
>
>Isn't `potato' spelt with an `e' in America?
Only by a former US Vice-President who had been chosen for looks,
not brains.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
http://www.kithrup.com/~djheydt
Alison Scott
>Non-random electrons from Alison Scott <ali...@fuggles.demon.co.uk>
>asserted
>>rpea...@pipeline.com (Robert Pearlman) wrote:
>>
>>>The British often use "on-side" and "off-side" for the right and left
>>>sides of a car, or perhaps for the left and right sides.
>>
>>Untrue.
>
>'Partially incorrect' you mean, Alison! We do use 'off side' when
>referring to cars (as in o/s/r tyre, for off side rear).
Oh, all right then. I still don't believe that "the British often
use..." the construction, though. Not only do I not use it myself, but
I had to really dredge my mind to think of it at all. Perhaps it's
part of the men's tongue?
Amy Sheldon
>C.S. Youd <sa...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote in
><7eqh5h$anh$1...@newnews.global.net.uk>:
>
>>11/3/99
>>
>>It's always been a problem. When Ann Durell was (superbly) editing
>>Children's Books at Dutton, she established a policy of textual editing
>>according to the writer's country of origin -- and I suddenly found
>>"colour" replacing " color". I don't think it survived her retirement.
>>We Europeans are generally more tolerant of the (minor) differences, I
>>feel. As the Scythians probably were of Rome.
>>John Christopher
>
>Good gracious, is this really the author of the White Mountains trilogy
>posting here to rasfw? Welcome.
Oh my! Those are such marvelous books, and the name just past me right
by. Please let me add to the general welcome.
--
Amy Sheldon
Benefits Administration
Case Western Reserve University
ai...@po.cwru.edu
Mike Scott
Scott) wrote:
>GSV Larger than Life <G...@quik.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Non-random electrons from Alison Scott <ali...@fuggles.demon.co.uk>
>>asserted
>>>rpea...@pipeline.com (Robert Pearlman) wrote:
>>>
>>>>The British often use "on-side" and "off-side" for the right and left
>>>>sides of a car, or perhaps for the left and right sides.
>>>
>>>Untrue.
>>
>>'Partially incorrect' you mean, Alison! We do use 'off side' when
>>referring to cars (as in o/s/r tyre, for off side rear).
>
>Oh, all right then. I still don't believe that "the British often
>use..." the construction, though. Not only do I not use it myself, but
>I had to really dredge my mind to think of it at all. Perhaps it's
>part of the men's tongue?
Yes, but you're sort-of right, as it's offside and nearside, not offside
and onside.
--
Mike Scott
mi...@moose.demon.co.uk
PNN has frequently updated news & comment for SF fandom
http://www.plokta.com/pnn/
Nancy Lebovitz
MollyMolo <moll...@aol.comNoSpam> wrote:
>In article <370DD848...@ix.netcom.com>, Bruce Sterling Woodcock
><sirb...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
>>How about grey vs. gray? Is that a UK/US thing, or has it become purely
>>stylistic? (I prefer grey; I hopy copyeditors can respect that.)
>>
>
>but seems to prefer "gray" over "grey."
>
definition someone quoted online a while ago) that "grey" is sometimes
used for slightly bluer tones than "gray" is.
Brent P. Newhall <me@other-space.com>
> In article <94vse7...@pearl.tao.co.uk>, David Given <d...@tao.co.uk> wrote:
> >In article <370e8501...@newsread.cancom.net>,
> > wbu...@cancom.net (William Burns) writes:
> >[...]
> >> It's 'judgement', btw. The other spelling is an American encroachment
> >> brought on by hiring teachers from south of the border.
> >
> >Isn't `potato' spelt with an `e' in America?
>
> Only by a former US Vice-President who had been chosen for looks,
> not brains.
Merrilly opening a can of worms:
To be fair, in that case 'potato' is spelt with an 'e' only in certain
teachers' textbooks, which a former US Vice President read out of.
(IOW, it was misspelled in the book, and was read that way.)
I've heard Quayle speaking, and I have to admit he's not quite as
brainless as many would have you believe....
IMHO, YMMV, just my $0.02, etc.
Brent P. Newhall
Editor of Papyrus
http://www.papyrus-fiction.com/
GSV Larger than Life
asserted
>GSV Larger than Life <G...@quik.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Non-random electrons from Alison Scott <ali...@fuggles.demon.co.uk>
>>asserted
>>>rpea...@pipeline.com (Robert Pearlman) wrote:
>>>
>>>>The British often use "on-side" and "off-side" for the right and left
>>>>sides of a car, or perhaps for the left and right sides.
>>>
>>>Untrue.
>>
>>'Partially incorrect' you mean, Alison! We do use 'off side' when
>>referring to cars (as in o/s/r tyre, for off side rear).
>
>Oh, all right then. I still don't believe that "the British often
>use..." the construction, though. Not only do I not use it myself, but
>I had to really dredge my mind to think of it at all. Perhaps it's
>part of the men's tongue?
Yep, it is definitely 'driver/mechanic speak'. Also, it is NOT 'on side
and off side' but 'near side and off side', as in n/s/f. Next time you
have your car (if any) serviced, and they write up a report on a tyre,
change a brake disc, or whatever, look at the bill, and one of the
illegible squiggles will probably be o/s/r or n/s/f or something.
Martin Wisse
wrote:
>C.S. Youd wrote:
>>
>> 11/3/99
>>
>> It's always been a problem. When Ann Durell was (superbly) editing
>> Children's Books at Dutton, she established a policy of textual editing
>> according to the writer's country of origin -- and I suddenly found "colour"
>> replacing " color". I don't think it survived her retirement.
>> We Europeans are generally more tolerant of the (minor) differences, I feel.
>> As the Scythians probably were of Rome.
>These days, some publishers seem to believe that Americanizing the
>spelling is important, and others seem to believe it's not. I've seen
>it both ways.
Most people probably read over the spelling differences; it's the
difference in words usage which is troublesome. (The old
smoking a fag joke)
>I'm not sure how much _more_ tolerant Europeans could be than
>Americans in this regard, given how familiar I was by age ten with
>British spelling and the differences between American and British
>vocabulary.
Well, when doing English in high school, both the American and British
English spelling were allowed, if used consistently. It would've been nice if
the teachers had told us the difference between the two though...
>> John Christopher
>
>If you're truly the author of the Tripods trilogy, well, I'll limit
>myself to saying, I loved those books.
Amen. These were actually the first books I read in English, no wonder i
became a sf fan.
Martin Wisse
Asia2000
: >
: > 11/3/99
: >
: > It's always been a problem. When Ann Durell was (superbly) editing
: > Children's Books at Dutton, she established a policy of textual editing
: > according to the writer's country of origin --
: > and I suddenly found "colour"
: > replacing " color". I don't think it survived her retirement.
That's the way I do it. Often a British author will be using American
wordprocessing software, which encourages US spelling and punctuation. But
not completely, so I get a mid-Atlantic blend. I feel this has to be
pushed to one side or the other, and the obvious determinant is the
author's origin. Occasionaly, it works the other way, with Americans
who've been in the (formerly British colony of) Hong Kong long enough to
pollute their spelling.
Authors rarely even notice these changes, unless I point them out. (I do
ask if they have strong feelings on the matter before proceeding, though.)
The Blue Rose
*snip*
>
>Yep, it is definitely 'driver/mechanic speak'. Also, it is NOT 'on side
>and off side' but 'near side and off side', as in n/s/f.
Might I theorise that it also evolved from the days of horse based
transport? The left side of the horse is referred to as the 'near'
side and the right is the 'off side.
Not entirely sure why but I think it relates to which side you mount
the horse from when riding. The traditional english rider always
mounts and dismounts (when done on purpose :) on the left/near side.
It sorta makes sense that early mechanics when faced with the new
horseless carriages, used terms they were familiar with and these have
stayed with us. Tho I have never heard a mechanic use them here, its
usually "driver" and "passenger" sides.
Stacey
-- Stacey Hill (note 2 spambusters in my address if replying by e-mail)
"A woman has the last word in any argument.
Anything a man says after that is the beginning of a new argument"
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Valley/9544/index.html
Betsy Perry
>The main reason is that the publishing world is traditionally divided into
>British Commonwealth and US zones. British publishers had major interests
>in Canada, Australia, so they would be able to sell directly in these
>markets. These patterns of ownership are changing, though.
>
>A secondary reason is that American and UK English are different
>languages.
>
>You will note if you compare US and UK editions that, unless they're small
>publishers cutting corners and just changing the cover, that the UK
>edition uses speech in single quotes, `like this', and the US version uses
>double quotes "like this". And there are the usual spelling changes
>color/colour, -ise/-ize, etc.
And, in the case of the Harry Potter books, deciding that Americans
are too stupid to get the reference to the Philosopher's Stone and
changing it to the Sorcerer's Stone instead. Not to mention changing
a snack of crumpets into English muffins.
Which is why I, an American, made a point of buying the English
editions. I have no objection to paying Scholastic their import fees,
but I _do_ object to their adulterating the merchandise. I grew up
happily reading about the Bastables spending pounds, shillings and
pence, and about the Fossils wanting to fix lorries, and I see no
reason to believe that modern readers are any less resilient.
--
Elizabeth Hanes Perry bet...@vnet.net
Mark Preston
wrote:
>In article <nrshe7.hjk.ln@gate>, Asia2000 <sarg...@tree.gateway.net.hk> wrote:
[snip]
>>A secondary reason is that American and UK English are different
>>languages.
>>You will note if you compare US and UK editions that, unless they're small
>>publishers cutting corners and just changing the cover, that the UK
>>edition uses speech in single quotes, `like this', and the US version uses
>>double quotes "like this". And there are the usual spelling changes
>>color/colour, -ise/-ize, etc.
The quotes bit is spurious - it simply depends on the publisher's
standards, since double-quotes are correct for both languages. The
spelling, obviously, is true.
>And, in the case of the Harry Potter books, deciding that Americans
>are too stupid to get the reference to the Philosopher's Stone and
>changing it to the Sorcerer's Stone instead. Not to mention changing
>a snack of crumpets into English muffins.
[snip]
It happens, I know, but I feel this is insulting to Americans.
The main reason is to do with copyright. The US uses a different
copyright convention (the UK and most of the rest of the world uses
the Berne Convention). If the US edition were sold in the UK, it would
have no (or at least questionable) legal copyright protection. The
same certainly aplies to UK works sold (but not published) in the US.
--
Mark A Preston BSc, FIAP
Business Manager, MicroFix Systems Solutions
ma...@mpreston.demon.co.uk
Lawrence Watt-Evans
Preston) wrote:
>The quotes bit is spurious - it simply depends on the publisher's
>standards, since double-quotes are correct for both languages. The
>spelling, obviously, is true.
Except that many British publishers don't bother to change the
spellings, and I've never seen one that used double quotes.
>The main reason is to do with copyright. The US uses a different
>copyright convention (the UK and most of the rest of the world uses
>the Berne Convention). If the US edition were sold in the UK, it would
>have no (or at least questionable) legal copyright protection. The
>same certainly aplies to UK works sold (but not published) in the US.
This is not true. The U.S. now abides by the Berne Convention, and
furthermore, even before that, U.S. works were covered by UK copyright
law. They have been for decades.
The split territories haven't had anything to do with copyright since
at least 1978. It's purely a contractual matter, as several authors
and at least one editor have pointed out here previously.
--
The Misenchanted Page: http://www.sff.net/people/LWE/ Last update 4/24/99
Christopher K Davis
> The main reason is to do with copyright. The US uses a different
> copyright convention (the UK and most of the rest of the world uses
> the Berne Convention). If the US edition were sold in the UK, it would
> have no (or at least questionable) legal copyright protection. The
> same certainly aplies to UK works sold (but not published) in the US.
This is incorrect; the US has been a signatory to the Berne Convention
for ten years now; see the Library of Congress's copyright web pages, in
particular the section on "Copyright and National Origin of the Work" at
<URL:http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ1.html#cno>.
--
Christopher Davis * <ckd...@ckdhr.com> * <URL:http://www.ckdhr.com/ckd/>
Put location information in your DNS! <URL:http://www.ckdhr.com/dns-loc/>
Asia2000
: On 23 Apr 1999 13:10:53 -0400, bet...@katie.vnet.net (Betsy Perry)
: wrote:
: >In article <nrshe7.hjk.ln@gate>, Asia2000 <sarg...@tree.gateway.net.hk> wrote:
: [snip]
: >>A secondary reason is that American and UK English are different
: >>languages.
: >>You will note if you compare US and UK editions that, unless they're small
: >>publishers cutting corners and just changing the cover, that the UK
: >>edition uses speech in single quotes, `like this', and the US version uses
: >>double quotes "like this". And there are the usual spelling changes
: >>color/colour, -ise/-ize, etc.
: The quotes bit is spurious - it simply depends on the publisher's
: standards, since double-quotes are correct for both languages. The
: spelling, obviously, is true.
The majority of British publishers use single speech quotes, the majority
of US publishers use double. Usage dictates standards in puctuation, as
in spelling.
If you looked at academic usage, eg OUP for UK, Chicago UP for US, it
would be 100% either way. Look at the respective universities' style
guides.
Can you name a prominent UK press that uses double speech quotes? I
haven't seen one.
Most exceptions in this are due to people using US DTP software without
noticing or caring in some cases that there are other possibilities.
Some small presses, and self publishers, fall into this group. Not to
mention even worse typographic solecisms, such as oblique for italics,
typewriter quotemarks, hyphens and dashes confused, etc.
Many UK newspapers, but not all, use double quotes, but that's done for
legibility on newsprint. We were discussing books.
Asia2000
: On Sat, 24 Apr 1999 20:35:37 GMT, ma...@mpreston.demon.co.uk (Mark
: Preston) wrote:
: >The quotes bit is spurious - it simply depends on the publisher's
: >standards, since double-quotes are correct for both languages. The
: >spelling, obviously, is true.
: Except that many British publishers don't bother to change the
: spellings, and I've never seen one that used double quotes.
I've got a US Bantam edition of a book originally published in the UK.
While preparing to reset it (not having the original files) I noticed that
while the punctuation was US, the spelling remained UK. I found this
mixture somewhat repugnant, so converted all the punctuation back to UK.
Obviously ther reverse had been done by Bantam, since that can be done
fairly automatically (though there are some conventions, such as whether
to put a full stop or comma within quotes, usually for US, sometimes for
UK, that require human thought.
Eveleen McAuley
>Mark Preston said
>: The quotes bit is spurious - it simply depends on the publisher's
>: standards, since double-quotes are correct for both languages.
Asia2000 wrote in answer
>The majority of British publishers use single speech quotes, the majority
>of US publishers use double. Usage dictates standards in puctuation, as
>in spelling.
and
>Can you name a prominent UK press that uses double speech quotes? I
>haven't seen one.
I was interested in this, because I also thought both single and double
quotes were normal in the British editions I read. Checking a random sample
on my bookshelf:
All the pre 1970s hardbacks that I've checked use double quotes. The newest
hardbacks I can find with double quotes are a Gollancz from 1988, a Hodder
& Stoughton from 1991, a HarperCollins from 1994 and a Macmillan from 1994.
All my Penguin paperbacks have single quotes - earliest printing I have is a
1955; however I've just found a 1996 Puffin with double quotes.
Both Fontana (Collins) and Pan paperbacks seem to have switched somewhere
between 1960 and 1965, but continued to reprint earlier editions at least
into the 1980s, so that a 1985 printing of a 50s or 60s book retains the
double quotes of its original paperback edition. However, the Pan editions
of Julian May's Saga of the Exiles (1982-1984) are back in double quotes.
I can't see any pattern here - I think that most readers of British editions
would happily accept either style, particularly if they have many older or
secondhand books.
Eveleen McAuley
Hallvard B Furuseth
> And, in the case of the Harry Potter books, deciding that Americans
> are too stupid to get the reference to the Philosopher's Stone and
> changing it to the Sorcerer's Stone instead. Not to mention changing
> a snack of crumpets into English muffins.
>
> editions. I have no objection to paying Scholastic their import fees,
> but I _do_ object to their adulterating the merchandise.
Incidentally, what can the _author_ do about that?
I remember Jostein Gaarder was quite angry about what the Americans
did to his _Sophie's world_, but I don't remember what came of it.
--
Hallvard
Rory Campbell
bet...@katie.vnet.net (Betsy Perry) wrote:
<SNIP>
> And, in the case of the Harry Potter books, deciding that Americans
> are too stupid to get the reference to the Philosopher's Stone and
> changing it to the Sorcerer's Stone instead. Not to mention changing
> a snack of crumpets into English muffins.
>
> Which is why I, an American, made a point of buying the English
> editions. I have no objection to paying Scholastic their import fees,
> but I _do_ object to their adulterating the merchandise. I grew up
> happily reading about the Bastables spending pounds, shillings and
> pence, and about the Fossils wanting to fix lorries, and I see no
> reason to believe that modern readers are any less resilient.
I remember as a kid reading American editions of Enid Blyton's Secret Seven
stuff and being very surprised to read about "cents", "trucks" and other
Americanisms. The publisher also saw fit to change the Seven's logo from "SS"
to "S7", no doubt to avoid the emotional scarring that would occur should an
impressionable young reader make the obvious connection between our intrepid,
pre-adoscelent, crime fighting heroes and Hitler's SS.
-Rory
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
mstemper - psc . com
>And, in the case of the Harry Potter books, deciding that Americans
>are too stupid to get the reference to the Philosopher's Stone and
>changing it to the Sorcerer's Stone instead. Not to mention changing
>a snack of crumpets into English muffins.
Is that what crumpets are? I never knew.
>Which is why I, an American, made a point of buying the English
>editions. I have no objection to paying Scholastic their import fees,
>but I _do_ object to their adulterating the merchandise. I grew up
>happily reading about the Bastables spending pounds, shillings and
>pence, and about the Fossils wanting to fix lorries,
OTOH, when I read the Narnia books to my son (who was then about
six or seven), I translated -- on the fly -- terms like "torch"
from British to American. Not because I don't think that he should
be aware of those two different languages, but because I didn't
want him thinking that the kids were carrying a burning stick.
--
Michael F. Stemper
mstemper @ siemens - psc . com
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Mathematicians have announced the existence of a new whole number which
lies between 27 and 28. "We don't know why it's there or what it does,"
says Cambridge mathematician, Dr. Hilliard Haliard, "we only know
that it doesn't behave properly when put into equations, and that it
is divisible by six, though only once."