[R] TT changes: editor or typo?

14 views
Skip to first unread message

Richard Eney

unread,
Jan 28, 2001, 8:49:03 PM1/28/01
to

Inevitably, there will be SPOILERS for TT.
I happen to have copies of The Truth in hardcover, in both
the UK and the US editions. Rereading one passage, I noticed
that a phrase seemed clumsy, so I compared it with the other to
see whether it was a typo. I was surprised to find that it was
significantly different and not in a way that was a natural sort
of typo for a typesetter to have made.
I started comparing the two from page one (US, which is around
page 7 UK) and found a bunch of small changes that are no doubt
required by the US publisher's standard style book, a few that
I think are the work of an overenthusiastic copyeditor, and one
or two that may even have been authorized by pTerry. I also found
at least one that makes a small but real difference in the meaning,
which I believe was not authorized by pTerry. I've only gone
through about 15 pages, so I don't know whether there is anything
really major to complain about.

Details to follow after this spoiler space.

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

p.9 UK: the Seriph of Al Khali (no hyphen), "in his case"
p.3 US: the Seriph of Al-Khali (hyphenated), 'in this case'

Also on those pages:
(UK) 'Mr Cripslock the engraver'
became (US) "Mr. Cripslock, the engraver"
which is a minor punctuation change that gives
a different rhythm to the sentence.
(UK) 'a closed boo--'
(US) "a closed bo--"

p.10 UK: liked to finish his letter on a happy note.
p.5 US: liked to finish his letter on a happier note.

This changes makes a subtle difference in William's attitude
toward the story he ended his letter with. This refers to the
A-M-style joke that in A-M anyone calling a dwarf 'short stuff'
would be killed.

Here is the effect I see:

UK version: William thinks of that as a happy little joke to end his
letter of news with. William is a member of a rough society which
genuinely thinks that it's funny when out-of-towner who uses a
pejorative term to a dwarf is killed.

US version: William thinks of that as a slightly happier joke than
the other material in his news letter, but only just slightly.
William is a somewhat more sensitive person than the average in the
culture he lives in; he knows it's a rough joke, but he also knows
his audience will appreciate it, and anyway, it's the lightest thing
he's managed to find out and he had to put _something_ in.

Do you see the difference in the effect?

A few minor differences:
p.11 UK: 'into Mr Cripslock'
p.5 US: "in to Mr. Cripslock"
I think this one was a genuine correction, since William didn't
literally force the wooden block physically into Mr. Cripslock's body.
The wood block in the UK became a woodblock in the US (a mistake,
I feel, since "woodblock" as one word is an adjective).
Similarly, UK 'face down' became US "facedown", another extremely minor
change which I feel changed a correct adverbial construction into a
misused adjective.

A significant error was introduced a page or so later:
p.12 UK: the 'usually busy street' became
p. 7 US: the "usual busy streets".
If the streets are usually busy, then at the moment they are not.
But when the streets are the usual busy streets, that means they are
still busy, which is not the case in the story.

A few typos later there is a minor and meaningless change in phrasing:
UK: only those people with the most
became
US: only those with the most

Then another change is made, and this one I believe was the act of an
overenthusiastic copyeditor:
p.13 UK: venture went all runny
p. 8 US: venture went all fruity

Dibbler's ventures having been referred to just previously as
having gone wahoonie-shaped, I believe that the copyeditor looked up
wahoonie, learned that it was a fruit, and assumed that a venture
would have gone fruity, when in fact it was worse than that - having
gone runny, it not only went wahoonie-shaped it became a rotten
wahoonie, which even Dibbler couldn't sell. (Either that or
wahoonies are normally runny, but I don't think so.)

Another mistake in copyediting (IMO) is on the same page:
p.18 UK: If'n I'd have got a good education
p. 8 US: If'n I have got a good education

Dibbler is not saying he has a good education!

On the same page, there's a change in the order of words in a sentence,
which is not a major problem but does mildly alter the emphasis.

UK: keep the lid down on the privy
US: keep the lid on the privy down

The US version emphasizes the preferred position of the lid (down)
at the expense of the more standard sentence rhythm in
'keep the lid down' and at the expense of the emphasis on the
rest of the sentence.

When Pin and Tulip arrive there is a change and I can't guess
why it was made.
p.15 UK: he spoke .... he said
p. 9 US: it spoke .... it said
The 'he' and 'it' refer to the third man in the boat. Pin and Tulip
verbally speak of the man as 'him' in both versions, and he is _not_
referred to as a 'shape', so why refer to him as an 'it'?

That's as far as I've gotten in comparing the two, except for the
first change I noticed, which was a description of Mr. Pin:
p.59 UK (line 30): 'unlike with his colleague,'
p.35 US (line 25): "in him, unlike his colleague,"

which may have been authorized by pTerry or may not have. Or he may
have noticed it and decided it wasn't worth shouting about.

But since there's been so much fuss over on alt.fan.h*rry-p*tter
about the translations into American in those books, I thought
I'd mention these.

=Tamar

J.T. Wenting

unread,
Jan 29, 2001, 4:39:13 AM1/29/01
to
Interesting reading...

> 2
>
> 4
>
> 6
>
> 8
>
> 10
>
> 12
>
> 14
>
> 16
>
> 18
>
> 20
>
> 22
>
> 24
>
> 26
>
> A significant error was introduced a page or so later:
> p.12 UK: the 'usually busy street' became
> p. 7 US: the "usual busy streets".
> If the streets are usually busy, then at the moment they are not.
> But when the streets are the usual busy streets, that means they are
> still busy, which is not the case in the story.
>
It is worse. "the usual busy streets" would suggest something along the
lines of "the usual suspects", where the usually busy streets emphasize the
state (empty rather than busy) of the street in question.

> A few typos later there is a minor and meaningless change in phrasing:
> UK: only those people with the most
> became
> US: only those with the most
>

leaving out people, suggesting not only people are involved (people and ...
other people)


> On the same page, there's a change in the order of words in a sentence,
> which is not a major problem but does mildly alter the emphasis.
>
> UK: keep the lid down on the privy
> US: keep the lid on the privy down
>
> The US version emphasizes the preferred position of the lid (down)
> at the expense of the more standard sentence rhythm in
> 'keep the lid down' and at the expense of the emphasis on the
> rest of the sentence.
>

it does change the meaning. The UK version empahsizes the fact that
something is kept down, the US version emphasizes the privy. I don't have
the book at hand to check whether this could be important to the story.

> When Pin and Tulip arrive there is a change and I can't guess
> why it was made.
> p.15 UK: he spoke .... he said
> p. 9 US: it spoke .... it said
> The 'he' and 'it' refer to the third man in the boat. Pin and Tulip
> verbally speak of the man as 'him' in both versions, and he is _not_
> referred to as a 'shape', so why refer to him as an 'it'?
>

Is the third person really a man, or is he a dwarf? If the latter, using
"he" may not be appropriate given the uncertainties about dwarf sex. Using
"it" might be worse, though, unless a the third person is a golem.


Miq

unread,
Jan 29, 2001, 6:52:56 AM1/29/01
to
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, Richard Eney <dic...@Radix.Net> wrote

>
>Inevitably, there will be SPOILERS for TT.

> I started comparing the two from page one (US, which is around

>page 7 UK) and found a bunch of small changes that are no doubt
>required by the US publisher's standard style book, a few that
>I think are the work of an overenthusiastic copyeditor, and one
>or two that may even have been authorized by pTerry. I also found
>at least one that makes a small but real difference in the meaning,
>which I believe was not authorized by pTerry. I've only gone
>through about 15 pages, so I don't know whether there is anything
>really major to complain about.

Since you've found so many alterations in just 15 pages, I dread to
think what might lurk in the rest of the book. I'm mildly amazed at
how... umm... industrious the copy editor seems to have been.

>Details to follow after this spoiler space.
>
>2
>
>4
>
>6
>
>8
>
>10
>
>12
>
>14
>
>16
>
>18
>
>20
>
>22
>
>24
>
>26
>
>p.9 UK: the Seriph of Al Khali (no hyphen), "in his case"
>p.3 US: the Seriph of Al-Khali (hyphenated), 'in this case'

Ah, I'm pretty sure I know why this happened. See below.

>Also on those pages:
>(UK) 'Mr Cripslock the engraver'
>became (US) "Mr. Cripslock, the engraver"

This one I'm very familiar with: it's copy-editor code for "I'm being
paid by the page, not by the hour, and I'm doing this on autopilot."

>which is a minor punctuation change that gives
>a different rhythm to the sentence.

Actually, I think it gives a different *meaning* to the sentence. "...
to Mr Cripslock the engraver in the Street of Cunning Artificers, ..."
means that Mr Cripslock is an engraver based in that street. Add the
comma, however, and it implies that Mr C is *the* engraver who lives in
that street, i.e. that there are no others.

By separating "the engraver who lives in [foo]" into a clause in its own
right, it becomes a defining rather than a descriptive clause. *Bad*
editing.

>(UK) 'a closed boo--'
>(US) "a closed bo--"

Hmmm. Can't see the logic behind this one, but it doesn't seem to make
much difference.

>p.10 UK: liked to finish his letter on a happy note.
>p.5 US: liked to finish his letter on a happier note.
>
>This changes makes a subtle difference in William's attitude
>toward the story he ended his letter with. This refers to the
>A-M-style joke that in A-M anyone calling a dwarf 'short stuff'
>would be killed.

Sounds like the copy editor just hasn't got the joke - Terry's joke, not
William's, I mean. Yet more evidence that they're not paying attention.

>A few minor differences:
>p.11 UK: 'into Mr Cripslock'
>p.5 US: "in to Mr. Cripslock"
> I think this one was a genuine correction, since William didn't
>literally force the wooden block physically into Mr. Cripslock's body.

I'd agree. This could, in fact, be an editing or even a proof-reading
mistake in the UK edition.

> The wood block in the UK became a woodblock in the US (a mistake,
>I feel, since "woodblock" as one word is an adjective).

Meaningless style change, I'd think.

>Similarly, UK 'face down' became US "facedown", another extremely minor
>change which I feel changed a correct adverbial construction into a
>misused adjective.

Adjective? Hmm... if I saw the word "facedown", I'd read it as a noun,
not unlike "showdown" - and with a similar meaning.

>A significant error was introduced a page or so later:
>p.12 UK: the 'usually busy street' became
>p. 7 US: the "usual busy streets".

This is just silly, and betrays an editor who's almost certainly not
being paid enough to take their job seriously...

<snip more evidence of same>


>When Pin and Tulip arrive there is a change and I can't guess
>why it was made.
>p.15 UK: he spoke .... he said
>p. 9 US: it spoke .... it said
>The 'he' and 'it' refer to the third man in the boat. Pin and Tulip
>verbally speak of the man as 'him' in both versions, and he is _not_
>referred to as a 'shape', so why refer to him as an 'it'?

You recall how the Serif of Al[-]Khali went from "... his case..." to
"... this case..."?

The copy-editor, who I submit is none too bright, has some Guidelines
about sexist language. One of these says that you should never make
assumptions about the sex of anyone unless explicitly told.

And this copy editor, instead of crediting Terry with the sense to use
these clues to impart actual information, has assumed that they are just
lazy language on his part.

Bad editing. *Bad* editor. No biscuit.

--
Miq
Deadlines looming? Teachers to impress? No time to read? Never fear!
The Discworld Homework Files: http://www.kew1.demon.co.uk/homework.html

Chris Connelly

unread,
Jan 29, 2001, 6:26:31 PM1/29/01
to

"J.T. Wenting" <jwen...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:980760857.3481....@news.demon.nl...

> Interesting reading...
> > 2
> >
> > 4
> >
> > 6
> >
> > 8
> >
> > 10
> >
> > 12
> >
> > 14
> >
> > 16
> >
> > 18
> >
> > 20
> >
> > 22
> >
> > 24
> >
> > 26
> >
(snip)

>>
> > When Pin and Tulip arrive there is a change and I can't guess
> > why it was made.
> > p.15 UK: he spoke .... he said
> > p. 9 US: it spoke .... it said
> > The 'he' and 'it' refer to the third man in the boat. Pin and Tulip
> > verbally speak of the man as 'him' in both versions, and he is _not_
> > referred to as a 'shape', so why refer to him as an 'it'?
> >
> Is the third person really a man, or is he a dwarf? If the latter, using
> "he" may not be appropriate given the uncertainties about dwarf sex. Using
> "it" might be worse, though, unless a the third person is a golem.

I had always assumed that the third person in the boat was the Vetinari
impersonator. We know that he comes from another city and there is no other
reason for Pin and Tulip to have a third person in the boat. Their
treatment of him is also consistent with their later treatment of the
Vetinari impersonator.

Chris Connelly
I'm a consultant. If you want a sig, make up one of your own and just send
me the cheque.


David Chapman

unread,
Jan 29, 2001, 7:21:05 PM1/29/01
to
"Chris Connelly" <con...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:mQmd6.12588$65.6...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...

> I had always assumed that the third person in the boat was the


Vetinari
> impersonator. We know that he comes from another city and there is
no other
> reason for Pin and Tulip to have a third person in the boat. Their
> treatment of him is also consistent with their later treatment of
the
> Vetinari impersonator.

This scarcely requires an assumption; why else would he have a bag
over his head that he isn't allowed to remove? It isn't to take him
to their secret hideout [1], because Tulip and Pin have never been to
A-M before.


[1] Well, it *is*, but it isn't *their* secret hideout, just *a*
secret hideout. IYSWIM.

--
Look into a mirror
Tell me what you see
No matter what you've been told
You ain't no better than me


Chris Connelly

unread,
Jan 29, 2001, 8:24:24 PM1/29/01
to

"David Chapman" <anti...@evildeath.madasafish.com> wrote in message
news:t7c5m9i...@corp.supernews.com...
I agree, however someone (whose name I've forgotten) tried to make the
argument that the third entity in the boat could be a dwarf and consequently
"it" is appropriate.

Chris


Richard Eney

unread,
Jan 29, 2001, 10:43:41 PM1/29/01
to
In article <FwSWyBAY...@kew1.demon.co.uk>,

Miq <Mi...@kew1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, Richard Eney <dic...@Radix.Net> wrote
>>
>>Inevitably, there will be SPOILERS for TT.
>
>> [...] found a bunch of small changes that are no doubt
>>required by the US publisher's standard style book, a few that
>>I think are the work of an overenthusiastic copyeditor, and one
>>or two that may even have been authorized by pTerry. I also found
>>at least one that makes a small but real difference in the meaning,
>>which I believe was not authorized by pTerry. I've only gone
>>through about 15 pages, so I don't know whether there is anything
>>really major to complain about.
>
>Since you've found so many alterations in just 15 pages, I dread to
>think what might lurk in the rest of the book. I'm mildly amazed at
>how... umm... industrious the copy editor seems to have been.

I've done up to about 107 pages now, and there are _lots_ more small
changes, and even a few places where I think pTerry either fixed a
bad UK edit or took the chance to make a slight improvement (no way
to know which).


>>Details to follow after this spoiler space.

Fresh new spoiler space, onna stick

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

>>p.9 UK: the Seriph of Al Khali (no hyphen), "in his case"


>>p.3 US: the Seriph of Al-Khali (hyphenated), 'in this case'
>
>Ah, I'm pretty sure I know why this happened. See below.

The sexist language fix? I think you're right.

>>Also on those pages:
>>(UK) 'Mr Cripslock the engraver'
>>became (US) "Mr. Cripslock, the engraver"

<snip>

>Actually, I think it gives a different *meaning* to the sentence. "...
>to Mr Cripslock the engraver in the Street of Cunning Artificers, ..."
>means that Mr Cripslock is an engraver based in that street. Add the
>comma, however, and it implies that Mr C is *the* engraver who lives in
>that street, i.e. that there are no others.
>
>By separating "the engraver who lives in [foo]" into a clause in its own
>right, it becomes a defining rather than a descriptive clause. *Bad*
>editing.

Good call. I'd missed that.

>>p.10 UK: liked to finish his letter on a happy note.
>>p.5 US: liked to finish his letter on a happier note.
>>

>>This change makes a subtle difference in William's attitude

>>toward the story he ended his letter with. This refers to the
>>A-M-style joke that in A-M anyone calling a dwarf 'short stuff'
>>would be killed.
>
>Sounds like the copy editor just hasn't got the joke - Terry's joke, not
>William's, I mean. Yet more evidence that they're not paying attention.

Or possibly the copy editor disapproved of the attitude.
Still, there's plenty of evidence that they weren't paying attention.
No need to attribute to malice, etc.

>>Similarly, UK 'face down' became US "facedown", another extremely minor
>>change which I feel changed a correct adverbial construction into a
>>misused adjective.
>
>Adjective? Hmm... if I saw the word "facedown", I'd read it as a noun,
>not unlike "showdown" - and with a similar meaning.

But it wasn't used as a noun; an item was put face down on a table.

><snip more evidence of same>
>>When Pin and Tulip arrive there is a change and I can't guess
>>why it was made.
>>p.15 UK: he spoke .... he said
>>p. 9 US: it spoke .... it said
>>The 'he' and 'it' refer to the third man in the boat. Pin and Tulip
>>verbally speak of the man as 'him' in both versions, and he is _not_
>>referred to as a 'shape', so why refer to him as an 'it'?
>
>You recall how the Serif of Al[-]Khali went from "... his case..." to
>"... this case..."?
>
>The copy-editor, who I submit is none too bright, has some Guidelines
>about sexist language. One of these says that you should never make
>assumptions about the sex of anyone unless explicitly told.
>
>And this copy editor, instead of crediting Terry with the sense to use
>these clues to impart actual information, has assumed that they are just
>lazy language on his part.
>
>Bad editing. *Bad* editor. No biscuit.

I think you've got it. Sheesh. Galloping P.C.ness strikes again.
Well, onward into the book:

A meaningless change into 'merkinspeak:
p.16 UK the other was tossed
p.10 US the other got tossed

p.16 UK the taller figure appeared unable to move /.../ the rumour
did come to his ears/.../he was part of it
p.10 US the taller figure appeared unable to walk /.../ the rumor
did come to its ears/.../it was part of it

Aside from the "move"/"walk" change, this looks like another case of
galloping P.C.

Now, this one may have been pTerry doing some revision:

p.17 UK it went thump again. William rubbed his head. 'What's happening?
/.../ 'your lordship' /.../ William winced.
p.11 US it went thump again. "What's happening?
/.../ "Your Lordship" /.../ William rubbed his forehead.

Both versions give us the chance to misinterpret William's gesture as an
indication of his sore forehead rather than his annoyance at being
addressed with a title, but the US version makes it subtler.

(Titles are almost always capitalized in the US version, so I'm not
bothering to note it unless it matters.)

p.17 UK 'The skinny man with the sausages?'
p.12 US "Was he the skinny man with the sausages?"

Further evidence of changes made for (or is it by?) the hard-of-thinking.

Now, here's a sad one:
p.17 UK another h after the first t /.../ lower case h /.../ the
extra h was in place
p.14 US another H after the first T /.../ upper case H /.../ the
extra H was in place

Since the word that needs the h was "hitherto" (typoed 'hiterto' in the
first flyer), obviously it needed to be a lower case h. So why the change
to an upper case one in the US version? I think it was because the
publisher's style sheet stipulated that any single letter must be a
capital letter - hence, "another H" - and following that without paying
any attention to what is actually going on in the scene, the copy editor
changed lower case to upper case.

p.23 UK fraught in Unseen University.
/.../ small, brightly colored, happy
p.17 US fraught in Unseen University, just at the moment.
/.../ small, brightly colored, and happy

p.23 UK ingredient that /.../ hallucinated more or less continuously
/.../ side effect that
p.18 US ingredient which /.../ hallucinated more or less continually
/.../ side effect which

Skipping some other minor changes
p.25 UK And it was a bigger glass!
p.20 US And it was a bigger glass! Who's been pinching my beer?

p.26 UK Only the upper glasses would dreamin of sending their sons there.
p.21 US Only the upper glasses would send their sons there.

Now, here's a major change and I think it may have been pTerry's doing:

p.26 UK actual achievement was so rare. The staff at Hugglestones
believed that in sufficient quantitites 'being keen' could take the
place of lesser attributes like intelligence, foresight, and training.
p.21 US actual achievement was so rare.

And farther down the page, we have:

p.26 UK only vaguely remember. Afterwards his father
p.21 US only vaguely remember.
Those who could recall William had a hazy picture of someone
always arriving just too late at some huge and painful collision
of bodies. A keen boy, they decided. The staff at Hugglestones
believed that in sufficient quantitites 'being keen' could take the
place of lesser attributes like intelligence, foresight, and training.
Afterwards his father


p.27 UK the younger son, and
p.22 US the younger son, in any case, and

Skip some other minor changes here.
p.33 UK the Omnians export
p.28 US the Omnians import

The first time Vetinari mentions ordering prawns via clacks:
p.35 UK prawns
p.30 US shrimps [though later the word is prawns]

p.38 UK the last Big Flop
p.34 US the last Big Thing

p.45 UK under careful observation
p.41 US under observation

p.47 UK looking like a book
p.43 US looks like a book

p.49 UK it was possibly a terrier
p.45 US it may have been a terrier

p.54 UK All the others were
p.50 US The others were

p.58 UK Mr Tulip demanded in an offended tone.
p.54 US Mr. Tulip demanded.

p.58 UK They got the dimensions all wrong.
p.54 US They got dimensions all wrong.

This one I think shows the copy editor didn't understand the larger view
that Mr. Tulip had:
p.59 UK knock this -ing city over!
p.55 US knock this -ing place over!

Tulip is referring to the city as a whole, not merely to the mansion.

p.61 UK You utterly, utterly - ungrateful person
p.57 US You utter, utter - ungrateful person

p.67 UK We may eventually have a job for the Guild, later on.
p.64 US The Guild may eventually have a contract...

p.68 UK Drumknott, who was despatched /.../ Drumknott reported/.../
He held
p.64 US Drumknot, who was dispatched /.../ He reported /.../
Drumknott held

p.73 UK if he remembers it ever being colder
p.70 US if he ever remembers it being colder

Here the editor definitely didn't get the joke:
p.84 UK some extremely concentric circles
p.80 US some worrying concentric circles

This is an "Aargh!" moment:
p.87 UK make something of it
p.84 US make something off it

And this:
p.91 UK any more
p.87 US anymore

And this, though it was probably sheer inattention; they corrected one of
the deliberate typos in the reproduced news column:
p.92 UK te city
p.89 US the city

This change slows down William's speech slightly:

p.94 UK Yes, yes /.../ S-sorry
p.91 US Yes...yes /.../ S...sorry

This implies that the editor never heard of a city garden:
p.94 UK There's good soil in that part of the city.
p.91 US There's good soil over that way.

Here's a change that we had a discussion about before:
the 800 copies at 5p each :
p.95 UK William's share $16.00
p.92 US William's share $40.00
IIRC they're only charging 20p per paper and some of that goes to the
beggars; if his share of that is 5p, he's only leaving about 13p to pay
everyone else in the business, and there are a lot of dwarfs involved.
If, on the other hand, they've already cut the price to 5p a paper, then
William's share of the total gross income of $40 is $16 net, which is
still a big cut - two-fifths of the take. That leaves $24 to pay everyone
else.

p.100 UK another wonderfully humourous vegetable /.../ swede
p.97 US another wonderful vegetable /.../ rutabaga

p.101 UK/p.98 US: Otto enters. I think I posted much earlier on the
changes in Otto's accent. It's minor but annoying that they made so many
minor and meaningless changes, usually strengthening it but not always.

p.101 UK father had been right /.../ asserted
p. 98 US father was right /.../ said

p.103 UK pillock
p.100 US idiot

p.106 UK it might be considered good
p.103 US might be considered good

p.107 UK the Watch was
p.104 US the Watch were

That's as far as I've done. I think we have a situation that is
not quite, but almost, as bad as the Meddling Moron (who drove
another famous British author nearly to the brink with changes that
altered the sense of the story).

=Tamar

Flesh-eating dragon

unread,
Jan 30, 2001, 12:36:55 AM1/30/01
to

Richard Eney wrote:

> >>Inevitably, there will be SPOILERS for TT.
>

> 2
>
> 4
>
> 6
>
> 8
>
> 10
>
> 12
>
> 14
>
> 16
>
> 18
>
> 20
>

> A meaningless change into 'merkinspeak:


> p.16 UK the other was tossed
> p.10 US the other got tossed

My Year Five teacher had a list of words that were never allowed to be
used. "Got" was one of these.

An enlightening and interesting thread.

Adrian.

Mary MacTavish

unread,
Jan 30, 2001, 2:30:05 AM1/30/01
to
On 29 Jan 2001 22:43:41 -0500, dic...@Radix.Net (Richard Eney) said:

>p.23 UK ingredient that /.../ hallucinated more or less continuously
> /.../ side effect that
>p.18 US ingredient which /.../ hallucinated more or less continually
> /.../ side effect which

Okay, as a copy editor by trade, but one too sleepy to reply to this
whole post, I'll address the above lines, which jumped out at me.

That's just lazy or incorrect. In this case, a comma goes before
"which" -- yes, even in Merkin. I'd swat that editor's hand.

.
Mary MacTavish
http://www.prado.com/~iris

Miq

unread,
Jan 30, 2001, 7:20:44 AM1/30/01
to
On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Tamar <dic...@Radix.Net> wrote

>I've done up to about 107 pages now, and there are _lots_ more small
>changes, and even a few places where I think pTerry either fixed a
>bad UK edit or took the chance to make a slight improvement (no way
>to know which).
>

>Fresh new spoiler space, onna stick
>
>2
>
>4
>
>6
>
>8
>
>10
>
>12
>
>14
>
>16
>
>18
>
>20
>

>p.23 UK ingredient that /.../ hallucinated more or less continuously
> /.../ side effect that
>p.18 US ingredient which /.../ hallucinated more or less continually
> /.../ side effect which

Strange - my UK copy says
ingredient which [...] side-effect that

which looks right to me. I certainly wouldn't change the second 'that'
to 'which', though I might toy with the idea of changing the first
'which' to 'that'.

>Skipping some other minor changes
>p.25 UK And it was a bigger glass!
>p.20 US And it was a bigger glass! Who's been pinching my beer?

Whaaa'? Did these people get a different version of the manuscript? I
can't imagine a copy editor adding that, and it seems too pointless to
be a deliberate insertion by Terry.

>p.26 UK Only the upper glasses would dreamin of sending their sons there.

^^
Is that your typo, or is that in your copy? It's not in mine.

>p.21 US Only the upper glasses would send their sons there.

Hmmm. If the editor did that, what they really need is six of the best
with a birch...

>Skip some other minor changes here.
>p.33 UK the Omnians export
>p.28 US the Omnians import

This makes no sense at all. Could be a tyop in the MS, which got
corrected in the UK version but not the US?

>The first time Vetinari mentions ordering prawns via clacks:
>p.35 UK prawns
>p.30 US shrimps [though later the word is prawns]

My experience is that at least some Americans have never heard the word
'prawn'. Is a shrimp the same thing?

>p.47 UK looking like a book
>p.43 US looks like a book

My (UK) copy says 'looks' here.

>This one I think shows the copy editor didn't understand the larger view
>that Mr. Tulip had:
>p.59 UK knock this -ing city over!
>p.55 US knock this -ing place over!
>Tulip is referring to the city as a whole, not merely to the mansion.

Seems an odd change for an editor to make, though.

>p.73 UK if he remembers it ever being colder
>p.70 US if he ever remembers it being colder

Good grief - a complete change in meaning. Editing while asleep.

>This is an "Aargh!" moment:
>p.87 UK make something of it
>p.84 US make something off it

Aaaaaaaaaaaargh!(!)

>And this:
>p.91 UK any more
>p.87 US anymore

ObThreadCross?

>And this, though it was probably sheer inattention; they corrected one of
>the deliberate typos in the reproduced news column:
>p.92 UK te city
>p.89 US the city

Again, my copy varies slightly here: it says 'te acity', where the 'a'
is in a much smaller font. I don't know if this is intentional or not -
it's not the sort of typo I can ever remember seeing for real.

>p.100 UK another wonderfully humourous vegetable /.../ swede
>p.97 US another wonderful vegetable /.../ rutabaga

Because after all, we can't describe a rutabaga as 'humorous', can we?
Might offend the many growers of the noble rutabaga, its fans, its
chefs... good grief, what was the author *thinking*?

>p.103 UK pillock
>p.100 US idiot

Is 'pillock' a word over there? (My spillchucker doesn't like it even
here.)

>That's as far as I've done. I think we have a situation that is
>not quite, but almost, as bad as the Meddling Moron (who drove
>another famous British author nearly to the brink with changes that
>altered the sense of the story).

I find some of the changes you've described quite shocking. Is it
because Terry doesn't have the same level of reputation over there that
they don't trust his command of the language? Or did he trust them too
much to read the proofs himself again...?

Cliff

unread,
Jan 30, 2001, 7:43:21 AM1/30/01
to

"Miq" <Mi...@kew1.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:nOz+tJAc...@kew1.demon.co.uk...
I think this depends on context.

The rocket that would have passed directly over London, which
is strictly forbidden, had to be destroyed two minutes after launch.

The rocket, which would have ..., which ...

Clarity of the second sentence depends on knowing already the rocket
of several meant.

>
> >The first time Vetinari mentions ordering prawns via clacks:
> >p.35 UK prawns
> >p.30 US shrimps [though later the word is prawns]
>
> My experience is that at least some Americans have never heard the word
> 'prawn'. Is a shrimp the same thing?
>

It forced even me to grab my dictionary, a Random House Webster's, and
then go out an buy another that had the word.

>
> >p.100 UK another wonderfully humourous vegetable /.../ swede
> >p.97 US another wonderful vegetable /.../ rutabaga
>

Rutabagas are funny. Swedes are people. Swedes are funny
people?

Turnips are funny, too. A potato is not funny. A potatoe is.


Cindy Hamilton

unread,
Jan 30, 2001, 9:08:37 AM1/30/01
to
In article <nOz+tJAc...@kew1.demon.co.uk>,

Miq <Mi...@kew1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Tamar <dic...@Radix.Net> wrote

> >The first time Vetinari mentions ordering prawns via clacks:


> >p.35 UK prawns
> >p.30 US shrimps [though later the word is prawns]
>
> My experience is that at least some Americans have never heard the word
> 'prawn'. Is a shrimp the same thing?

According to my 'Murrican dictionary, a shrimp is a small decapod
crustacean of the order Natania. Prawns are small decapod crustaceans
of the genera Palaemon, Panaeus, etc.

In common usage, the word "prawn" is reserved for the very largest
edible decapod crustaceans, regardless of species (which we don't
inquire about when we have fork in hand).

The next person in this thread commented on swede vs. rutabaga.
Rutabaga is the 'Murrican term for the vegetable called swede
on the other side of the pond. The vegetable is also referred
to, according to that selfsame dictionary, as a Swedish turnip.
The word rutabaga, apparently, descends from a Swedish word.

Cindy Hamilton,
tired of getting up to consult the archaic paper dictionary,
but undaunted in pursuit of The Truth.


Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/

Ron Wellsted

unread,
Jan 30, 2001, 4:10:35 PM1/30/01
to
On 29/01/01, 22:43:41, dic...@Radix.Net (Richard Eney) wrote regarding
Re: [R] TT changes: editor or typo?:


> In article <FwSWyBAY...@kew1.demon.co.uk>,
> Miq <Mi...@kew1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, Richard Eney <dic...@Radix.Net> wrote
> >>
> >>Inevitably, there will be SPOILERS for TT.
> >

- - - 8< - - -

YKYBHTLW you see TT and think "who's discussing Time Team in the
Pratchett group?"
--
Ron Wellsted
E-mail: r...@wellsted.org.uk
Web Site: http://www.wellsted.org.uk

Speaker-to-Customers

unread,
Jan 30, 2001, 7:11:23 PM1/30/01
to

"Cliff" <jc...@space.com> wrote ...
>
(Snip)

> > >Fresh new spoiler space, onna stick
> > >
> > >2
> > >
> > >4
> > >
> > >6
> > >
> > >8
> > >
> > >10
> > >
> > >12
> > >
> > >14
> > >
> > >16
> > >
> > >18
> > >
> > >20
> > >

> > >p.100 UK another wonderfully humourous vegetable /.../ swede


> > >p.97 US another wonderful vegetable /.../ rutabaga
> >
> Rutabagas are funny. Swedes are people. Swedes are funny
> people?
>
> Turnips are funny, too. A potato is not funny. A potatoe is.
>

A Swede is a person from Sweden. A swede (lower case) is a vegetable. In
fact a turnip, and so funny even by your definition. No-one in the UK knows
what a rutabaga is, unless they are botanists, cooks, or have lived in the
USA. It certainly sounds funny, but does not convey any visual impression
at all. My wife (who falls into the "cook" category) has informed me that
it is a turnip too, but without her help I would have assumed it to be a
musical instrument of the trombone family.

This is an example of a constructive change, a translation from English into
American, similar to the translation of "curry" into "rotti" in the Dutch
editions.

I am completely baffled as to why Americans would find the addition of a
letter "e" to the word "potato" to be hilarious.

Paul Speaker-to-Customers

Mary Messall

unread,
Jan 30, 2001, 7:24:15 PM1/30/01
to
Speaker-to-Customers wrote:
> "Cliff" <jc...@space.com> wrote ...

> > Turnips are funny, too. A potato is not funny. A potatoe is.
> I am completely baffled as to why Americans would find the addition of a
> letter "e" to the word "potato" to be hilarious.

One of our national legends. Dan Quayle, who was Vice President the last
time there was a Bush in the White House, was asked to judge a spelling
bee. The child spelled potato "p-o-t-a-t-o" and the distinguished Mr.
Quayle replied: "I'm sorry, that is incorrect. You left off the e at the
end."

This is not the stupidest thing he ever said, by any means.

-Mary (to be fair, he was supposedly looking at a card that had it
wrong.)

--
http://www.crosswinds.net/~mmessall/
"There's always a little dirt, or infinity, or something."
-Richard Feynman

Martyn Clapham

unread,
Jan 30, 2001, 4:54:40 PM1/30/01
to
In article <20010131...@ron-ws.wellsted>, Ron Wellsted
<r...@wellsted.org.uk> writes

>On 29/01/01, 22:43:41, dic...@Radix.Net (Richard Eney) wrote regarding
>Re: [R] TT changes: editor or typo?:
>
>> In article <FwSWyBAY...@kew1.demon.co.uk>,
>> Miq <Mi...@kew1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, Richard Eney <dic...@Radix.Net> wrote
>> >>
>> >>Inevitably, there will be SPOILERS for TT.
>> >
>
>- - - 8< - - -
>
>YKYBHTLW you see TT and think "who's discussing Time Team in the
>Pratchett group?"

< mode = sad, boring bastard >

We actually _have_ discussed Time Team on here.

Mainly in Jan 97, but with a brief mention in April last year.

< /mode >

Mart.
--
Everything you wanted to know about afp, but were afraid to ask, is at
http://www.lspace.org/ Having fun on afp from 1996
My own website is http://www.mclapham.demon.co.uk/index.htm
Afpengaged to Mary Messall and being afpadulterous with Spooky.

Gid Holyoake

unread,
Jan 30, 2001, 9:00:16 PM1/30/01
to
In article <20010131...@ron-ws.wellsted>, Ron Wellsted generously
decided to share with us..

Snippetry..

> YKYBHTLW you see TT and think "who's discussing Time Team in the=20
> Pratchett group?"

YKYHBHLE Shirley?..

Gid

(=20 was provided by the kind permission of Star Office, Linux and
Printed Quotable)[1]

[1] Hmmm.. makes a change from OE..


--
The Most Noble and Exalted Peculiar , Harem Master to Veiled Concubines
Guardian of the Sacred !!!!!'s , Defender of the Temple of AFPdoration
ISTP http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~gidnsuzi/ for The Irrelevant Page! MJBC
A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory..

Cliff

unread,
Jan 30, 2001, 9:27:28 PM1/30/01
to

"Speaker-to-Customers" <oct...@mcb.net> wrote in message
news:957l4d$rpq$1...@MANNET-3800-2.mcb.net...
>
no more spoiler left :-(

> A Swede is a person from Sweden. A swede (lower case) is a vegetable. In
> fact a turnip, and so funny even by your definition.

I think you're pulling my leg.[1] Great-uncle Henry used to tell me
there was a "Chickahominey River", too.[2]

Skepticism is safer.

If swede really means turnip then I must buy *another* dictionary
because mine, which is published by Cambridge, cost a mint,
and was thoroughly examined to make sure it mispelled
color, says

"swede: British and Australian, American usually rutabaga noun.
a round vegetable with dark yellow flesh and a brown or purple skin"

Rutabagas don't really look like that. The skin is a sort of
purplish-green.

A rutabaga looks like a turnip that is much too fond of beer.
Now, which is a swede?

>
> I am completely baffled as to why Americans would find the addition of a
> letter "e" to the word "potato" to be hilarious.
>

Dan Quayle.[3]


[1] Come on, own up. We know you sit around
68 hours a week thinking up new ways to mispell words and
the other 100 hours giggling in your stout "next we will get them to
think that foshiimickle is a word". We know you done it, so own up.

[2] actually, of all the tall tales I've been told, this one turned out
to be true.

[3] Remember that Minister of Transportation you had who got
stuck in the little electric car? Dan Quayle is the American
version of him.

--
Cliff


Richard Eney

unread,
Jan 30, 2001, 10:14:49 PM1/30/01
to
>On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Tamar <dic...@Radix.Net> wrote
<snip>

>>Fresh new spoiler space, onna stick

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20
>>p.23 UK ingredient that /.../ hallucinated more or less continuously
>> /.../ side effect that
>>p.18 US ingredient which /.../ hallucinated more or less continually
>> /.../ side effect which
>
>Strange - my UK copy says
> ingredient which [...] side-effect that

Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa typo - aargh. My UK copy is like yours, I
blew it with that one. Embarassing to have typos (or write-os) in a post
on this topic.

But the major change I was noting was the change from "continuously" to
"continually". I don't know which was pTerry's original, but
"continuously" means without ever stopping for a moment, and "continually"
allows for stopping for a moment, or even for a night's sleep.

>>Skipping some other minor changes
>>p.25 UK And it was a bigger glass!
>>p.20 US And it was a bigger glass! Who's been pinching my beer?
>
>Whaaa'? Did these people get a different version of the manuscript? I
>can't imagine a copy editor adding that, and it seems too pointless to
>be a deliberate insertion by Terry.

I think it was in PTerry's original, because the closing quotemark on the
sentence is missing in the UK version and present in the US version, as
though the compositor had dropped the last sentence.

>>p.26 UK Only the upper glasses would dreamin of sending their sons there.
> ^^
>Is that your typo, or is that in your copy? It's not in mine.

My typo again, sorry. It was "dream of".

>>p.21 US Only the upper glasses would send their sons there.
>
>Hmmm. If the editor did that, what they really need is six of the best
>with a birch...

There are worse...

>>Skip some other minor changes here.
>>p.33 UK the Omnians export
>>p.28 US the Omnians import
>
>This makes no sense at all. Could be a tyop in the MS, which got
>corrected in the UK version but not the US?

It makes sense both ways, really. The Omnians export their pamphlets
from Omnia, and the Omnians in A-M import them. It's a difference in
emphasis.

>>The first time Vetinari mentions ordering prawns via clacks:
>>p.35 UK prawns
>>p.30 US shrimps [though later the word is prawns]
>
>My experience is that at least some Americans have never heard the word
>'prawn'. Is a shrimp the same thing?

I think so but no doubt someone with actual knowledge will respond. The
change was no doubt to tell the poor benighted Americans what the subject
of discussion was, at the expense of the alliteration of "order a pint of
prawns". All the other mentions of prawns are unchanged.

>>p.47 UK looking like a book
>>p.43 US looks like a book
>
>My (UK) copy says 'looks' here.

Farther down the page. "Looking like a book sounded like a good thing."

<snip>


>>And this, though it was probably sheer inattention; they corrected one of
>>the deliberate typos in the reproduced news column:
>>p.92 UK te city
>>p.89 US the city
>
>Again, my copy varies slightly here: it says 'te acity', where the 'a'
>is in a much smaller font. I don't know if this is intentional or not -
>it's not the sort of typo I can ever remember seeing for real.

I left off the tiny "a" because it isn't something I can do in ascii and
it also wasn't changed.

>>p.103 UK pillock
>>p.100 US idiot
>
>Is 'pillock' a word over there? (My spillchucker doesn't like it even
>here.)

No, but it's one I've become used to, and there wasn't any good reason to
change it. Again, it alliterated - "prance about like a pillock" - and
again, it constitutes a change in style to no good purpose.

>I find some of the changes you've described quite shocking. Is it
>because Terry doesn't have the same level of reputation over there that
>they don't trust his command of the language? Or did he trust them too
>much to read the proofs himself again...?

I speculate that he was tired of arguing; who knows what dunderheaded
changes he _did_ manage to prevent?

More to come. *sigh*

=Tamar

Christopher Biggs

unread,
Jan 31, 2001, 12:47:27 AM1/31/01
to
"Cliff" <jc...@space.com> moved upon the face of the 'Net and spake thusly:

>
> Rutabagas don't really look like that. The skin is a sort of
> purplish-green.
>

Nah, thats just because merkin eyes use NTSC.

--cjb

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- Christopher Biggs - Stallion Technologies - ch...@stallion.oz.au ---
The IEEE has monitored this electronic mail message, and asserts that no
energy was created or destroyed during its construction or transmission.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Richard Eney

unread,
Jan 31, 2001, 1:40:20 AM1/31/01
to
Half again, half again, half again onward...
More differences between the UK and US versions of The Truth.
pages (UK) 110 to 234
(US) 108 to 235
TT spoilers

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

Many of these are sloppy editing, some are deliberate changes,
one is just plain weird.

UK 110 Do not be movingk, please
US 108 Do not movink, please

UK 111 The kitchens are over that way
US 109 The kitchens are that way

A moment of silence, please, while I scream at the idiot:

UK 111 whence came a hubbub
US 109 from whence came a hubbub

and while I boggle:

UK 111 What did you say to our Mary?
US 109 What did you say to our Rene?

UK 116 unwrapped the meal
US 113 unwrapped it

UK 117 He'd been /.../ embezzling money /.../ some kind of coherent story
US 114/115 He had been /.../ trying to embezzle money /../ a coherent
story

UK 121 he had the grey pallor / and wore the expression
US 118 he had the pale gray pallor / and the expression

UK 123 when you're ready /.../ dust settled around them
US 120 when you are ready /../ dust fell around them

UK 124 time for a rise /.../ what about you, Ott- Oh, can
US 122 time for a raise /.../ what about you, Ott- oh... can

UK 126 mysteriously also hard at work/ It was the third
US 124 mysteriously at work / That was the third

Here, a correct change to the subjunctive case:

UK 129 as if it was
US 127 as if it were

But ignorance and missing the joke, here:

UK 130 my asking / a hundred many
US 129 me asking / a hundred too many

UK 135 first impressions. / cells have locks
US 133 first impressions, shall we? / cells have locks on

UK 136 would then be able to help
US 134 could then help

This one changes a rhetorical question into a real question:

UK 137 aren't you,'
US 135 aren't you?"

It can't be a real question; Drumknott has seen William before.

UK 138 After she had carefully ushered / Sergeant Angua
US 136 After the sergeant had ushered / She

UK 139 instant fish and chips are
US 137 instant fish and chips is

UK 140 out on the landing
US 138 out of the landing

UK 141 al fresco / having a meal
US 140 Al Fresco / having meals

Capitalizing the first instance of "al fresco" is not only wrong,
it telegraphs the joke.

UK 143 Inside the press was
US 142 At least the press was

UK 144 2p
US 142 tuppence

"Tuppence" even in the US where that currency was never used still
expresses a different attitude toward the amount than "2p" does.

UK 144 O-kay
US 143 Okay

Taking the hyphen out changes the expression of the word from
a slow, decision-made-while-saying-it meaning to simply being
an assent. Grrr. "O...kay" would have worked, but not as well.

UK 146 a Burleigh and Ztronginzerarm job / light on autumn leafs
US 144 an absolutely vunderful job / light of autumn leafs

UK 149 The door swung to behind him
US 148 the door swung to after him

UK 150 whole streets at a time
US 149 a whole street at a time

A typo (losing the apostrophe) which makes the statement less
comprehensible:

UK 158 eel 'as gone
US 157 eel as gone

This next one is stupid; both usages are current in the US:

UK 159 came to
US 158 came around

UK 160 Sacharissa snatched it
US 159 She snatched it

UK 164 there is a footnote about vampires who are singing around the
harmonium
US 163 the footnote has been interpolated into the text, in parentheses

This time it wasn't rutabaga:
UK 172 swede /the Enquirer and both editions of the Times
US 171 turnip /both the Enquirer and the two editions of the Times

Dinner is earlier in the US, I see:
UK 172 8:45
US 172 8:35

UK 174 Vetinari...somewhere
US 173 Vetinari...someplace

UK 177 most importantly
US 177 most important,

UK 178 Rush /.../ drop /.../ when, nightshirted
US 178 Rushing /.../ dropping /.../ as, nightshirted

UK 179 as if he was
US 179 as if he were

This correction was discussed at length previously:
UK 179 Tuesday morning
US 179 Monday night

UK 182 where the time only ever came in.
US 181 where the time forever came in.

UK 184 grandmother /.../ She /../ her
US 184 grandmother /.../ He /.../ his

Losing the capital letter on Smell changes the sense and
wipes out the running joke about Foul Ole Ron's (and also
about Gaspode's) respective Smells. Gaspode's smell seems
to be growing stronger.

UK 190 more importantly / a Smell
US 190 more important / a smell

UK 191 taste, style of fing
US 192 taste, as you might say

UK 193 what kind of expression / had had any
US 193 what kind of phrase / had any

UK 197 the barking ceased
US 198 the bark ceased

UK 199 The Omnians' turtle / on the man's head
US 199 The Omnia's turtle / on his head

UK 205 a handkerchief
US 205 a black handkerchief

UK 205 a dwarf William had come to know as Dozy.
US 205 a dwarf William had come to know.

UK 205 I'm sure "ing" is a bad word.
US 205 I'm sure '-ing' is a bad word.

I'm informed that this changes the meaning, since a cobbler
is technically not a shoemaker but a shoe repairer:

UK 209 Guild of Cobblers and Leatherworkers
US 210 Guild of Shoemakers and Leatherworkers

UK 215 wahoonie-shaped
US 216 wahooni-shaped

I'd think that was a typo but it happened again later; the US editor
seems to believe that "wahoonie" is spelled "wahooni".

UK 216 bigger than they thought
US 217 bigger than she thought

UK 222 it isn't really for the average...
US 222 it isn't really for...

Another Aaargh! moment:
UK 223 as they approached
US 224 like they approached

And another; this one changes the timing of Williams' throw-and-run,
and spoils the careful effect pTerry set up, of William throwing and
making it out of there before the jar lands:

UK 225 so that it would land
US 226 so that it landed

But this one may have been a correction by pTerry:
UK 232 the crew were just
US 234 the canting crew were just

UK 233 they've been harangued
US 234 they're being haranged

What kind of food...
UK 233 would Goldfish Eats Cat be?
US 234 would be Goldfish Eats Cat?

UK 234 wished you weren't
US 235 wished you didn't

More stupid editor tricks to come later.

=Tamar

Jacqui

unread,
Jan 31, 2001, 3:00:31 AM1/31/01
to
Mary Messall wrote:
> Speaker-to-Customers wrote:
> > Cliff wrote ...

> > > Turnips are funny, too. A potato is not funny. A potatoe is.
> > I am completely baffled as to why Americans would find the addition of a
> > letter "e" to the word "potato" to be hilarious.
>
> One of our national legends. Dan Quayle, who was Vice President the last
> time there was a Bush in the White House, was asked to judge a spelling
> bee. The child spelled potato "p-o-t-a-t-o" and the distinguished Mr.
> Quayle replied: "I'm sorry, that is incorrect. You left off the e at the
> end."

According to Domino's Pizza (Oxford Park End St.)[1] Potatoe is the One
True Spelling. It was written thus on all the labels on the pizza I had
last night, anyway. Mind you, these are people who invented something
called Puntanesca[2] sauce.

Jac

[1] Note full stop for abbreviation of street. Ha. I can do what I
like on my own time......
[2] 'One sauce for madam, one for sir?'

Cliff

unread,
Jan 31, 2001, 5:23:28 AM1/31/01
to

"Christopher Biggs" <ch...@stallion.oz.au> wrote in message
news:sahf2gm...@gweepery.stallion.oz.au...

> "Cliff" <jc...@space.com> moved upon the face of the 'Net and spake thusly:
>
> >
> > Rutabagas don't really look like that. The skin is a sort of
> > purplish-green.
> >
>
> Nah, thats just because merkin eyes use NTSC.
>
NTSC-2, never the same color twice.


Stevie D

unread,
Jan 30, 2001, 6:45:24 PM1/30/01
to
Miq wrote:

> Strange - my UK copy says
> ingredient which [...] side-effect that
>
> which looks right to me. I certainly wouldn't change the second
> 'that' to 'which', though I might toy with the idea of changing
> the first 'which' to 'that'.

They should both be 'that'.

The correct usage is ...

* The wibble that wobbles is wurble.
- where the wobbling is an essential and defining characteristic
of the wibble.
* The wibble, which wobbles, is wurble.
- where the wobbling is an entirely incidental characteristic of
the wibble.

When used to introduce a descriptive bit, "which" must be preceded by a
comma, "that" must not.

HTH

--
Happiness is like a butterfly - chase it and you will never catch it,
but sit quietly and it may alight on you for a while.


Suzi

unread,
Jan 31, 2001, 8:09:05 AM1/31/01
to
Richard Eney <dic...@Radix.Net> wrote in message
news:958c0k$a91$1...@saltmine.radix.net...

> Half again, half again, half again onward...
> More differences between the UK and US versions of The Truth.
> pages (UK) 110 to 234
> (US) 108 to 235
[Snip]

Am I the only one sat here wondering why some of these look like the
copy editor was lazy and used the spelling and grammar checking facility
to save brainwork?

Suzi


Richard Bos

unread,
Jan 31, 2001, 12:13:13 PM1/31/01
to
"Suzi" <Su...@lspace.org> wrote:

For "from whence"? Looks more like terminal unfitness for this
particular job to me.

Richard

MP

unread,
Jan 31, 2001, 1:47:02 PM1/31/01
to
Hmm, he may be wrong, but MP thinks that Martyn Clapham
<mar...@mclapham.demon.co.uk> wrote, on Tue, 30 Jan 2001 21:54:40
+0000, that:

>In article <20010131...@ron-ws.wellsted>, Ron Wellsted
><r...@wellsted.org.uk> writes
>>On 29/01/01, 22:43:41, dic...@Radix.Net (Richard Eney) wrote regarding
>>Re: [R] TT changes: editor or typo?:
>>
>>> In article <FwSWyBAY...@kew1.demon.co.uk>,
>>> Miq <Mi...@kew1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> >On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, Richard Eney <dic...@Radix.Net> wrote
>>> >>
>>> >>Inevitably, there will be SPOILERS for TT.
>>> >
>>
>>- - - 8< - - -
>>
>>YKYBHTLW you see TT and think "who's discussing Time Team in the
>>Pratchett group?"
>
>< mode = sad, boring bastard >
>
>We actually _have_ discussed Time Team on here.
>
>Mainly in Jan 97, but with a brief mention in April last year.
>
>< /mode >
>

There is a logic behind discussing Time Team on here though:
RTony-sorry Tony Robinson- reads the DW books for Corgi and presents
Time Team.
I liked the Time Team where they found the bloke who had apparently
planted lots of rubbish and they confronted him. It was quite amusing
watching them get pissed off at the landowner.

MP

Quantum Moth

unread,
Jan 31, 2001, 2:42:31 PM1/31/01
to
<m...@unseenuniversity.org>, aka MP, said a bit earlier...

>
> There is a logic behind discussing Time Team on here though:
> RTony-sorry Tony Robinson- reads the DW books for Corgi and presents
> Time Team.
>
Sorry, but whyfore RTony?

--
thom willis - sc...@mostly.com - Corinne's Worse Half
Good breeding since 9.2.00 | http://sanctuary.orcon.net.nz
http://afpmovie.orcon.net.nz - for all your hubris needs!
i'm ready to go.

Spooky

unread,
Jan 31, 2001, 2:41:04 PM1/31/01
to

MP <m...@unseenuniversity.org> wrote in message
news:3a77ee79...@news.york.ac.uk...

Yikes, if there is _one guy_ who I would _love_ to meet at a CCDE
(baring the obvious highfalutin' attendees) is would be Tony Robinson.
There is not one thing that guy has done that I haven't liked.
He has given voice to Pterry's characters in a way I could relate to -
and I take my hat off to the bloke :o)
Has he ever been invited to a CCDE, anyone?

--
Spooky :o)
afpfiancé to Andrew's pink & fluffy wossnames,
afp-mistress to Martyn - who has rose tinted wossnames?


Martyn Clapham

unread,
Jan 31, 2001, 6:18:24 PM1/31/01
to
In article <MPG.14e27a2fd...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>, Quantum Moth
<sc...@mostly.com> writes

><m...@unseenuniversity.org>, aka MP, said a bit earlier...
>>
>> There is a logic behind discussing Time Team on here though:
>> RTony-sorry Tony Robinson- reads the DW books for Corgi and presents
>> Time Team.
>>
>Sorry, but whyfore RTony?
>
Looks like another mis-understanding of the Pterry gag. :-(((

Richard Eney

unread,
Jan 31, 2001, 6:53:16 PM1/31/01
to
The end is in sight. Further TT spoilers in this last
section of the changes made between the UK and the US editions.

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

UK 236/US238: not a change, just a really applicable line:
"There's got to be more to life than correcting copy."

UK 236 could adjust it for me
US 238 could alter it for me

UK 238 poodleosity
US 239 poodlosity

This is one of the few places where the UK had a capitalization and the US
did not. Usually it's the other way around:
UK 240 Canting Crew
US 246 canting crew

UK 244 shopped a client
US 246 betrayed a client

UK 251 which people might think were bad / they wouldn't be doing it
US 253 that people might think were bad / they wouldn't do it

UK 258 in single column
US 261 in a single column

IMO this one improved the effect, but what do I know?
UK 262 There was a flash of dark as they protested.
US 265 There was a flash of dark.

UK 262 survived his every attempt
US 265 survived every attempt

UK 265 Us or theirs
US 268 Ours or theirs

UK 266 under a closed door
US 268 under a locked door

UK 266 might turn up
US 269 may turn up

UK 268 dry, then,' said the dwarf, now sliding towards 'glumly'.
US 269 dry, then," said the dwarf.

UK 267 then dispersed
US 270 had already dispersed

UK 270 hands were tight /.../ vice-like
US 274 hands tight /.../ viselike

UK 271 grappling with his arm /.../ ' 'm all right, okay?'
US 274 grappling with his own arm /.../ "All right, okay?"

UK 273 don't ve?
US 275 don't ve.

Consistently changed (grrr):
UK 149, 277, 292 round the world
US 148, 280, 296 around the world

That copyeditor would probably change "the shot heard round the world"
too.

UK 280 vest tails flying
US 284 coattails flying

UK 282 citizens, who
US 286 citizens. They

Here's a major change:
UK 285 He doesn't really believe they can touch him, and if they do,
he'll just shout until they go away.
US 289 He really believes they can't touch him, and that if they
do he can just shout until they go away.

That changes the degree of likelihood that Lord de Worde is correct
in his belief. In the first version, they _will_ go away. In the
second version, he _believes_ they will go away.

This is a subtle one:
UK 289 they never take _their_ gloves off.
US 285 they never take their gloves off.

For the most part I haven't bothered to mention slight differences of
italicization, but here it makes a difference. The UK version hints
that although the men referred to don't take their own gloves off, they
give orders that cause other men to take their gloves off. In the
second, they might be doing something themselves.

And here's a major one, and I recommend that purchasers of the US version
get a fine-pointed ball point pen and write in the correction:

UK 287/88 YOU MAY BE LEADING QUITE A DIFFERENT LIFE.
'Good...'
Death [...]
US 291 YOU MAY BE LEADING QUITE A DIFFERENT LIFE.
Death [...]

See the difference? Tulip's line, 'Good...', is missing! That's
both Tulip's opinion about his past and, quite possibly, a hint about
his future.

UK 289 size of the weather
US 293 size of weather

UK 296 Besides, I am sure that those who want to know
US 300 Besides, those who want to know

UK 296 just sticks it in a vampire
US 301 just stick it in vampire

UK 297 An officer who identified themself to me
US 301 An officer who identified themselves to me

UK 298 the speaking tube
US 303 a speaking tube

UK 299 replaced the pipe. /.../ And I suspect
US 203 hooked up the pipe again. /.../ But I suspect

UK 301 Mr Slant,' said William.
US 306 Mr. Slant."

UK 304 Willaim and Otto arrived /.../.
US 309 William arrived /.../, with otto.

UK 306 William smiled at him politely.
US 311 William smiled at him, politely.

UK 311 no wound was too deep
US 316 no wound was too dire

Also on the above pages, William's thought at the end - the last sentence
of the paragraph - is italicized in the UK and not in the US, which makes
the entire paragraph his thought in the US, where in the UK it is the
basic knowledge on which his thought is based. It's a subtle difference
but it makes a difference to me in the speed with which he comes to that
conclusion.

Ignorance here; I can't believe the style book is responsible:
UK 313 your being imprisoned /.../ your being cheeky
US 318 you being imprisoned /.../ you being cheeky

UK 317 oblivious of the
US 321 oblivious to the

UK 317 in a rush of steam and slush
US 322 in a rush of mud and ice crystals

Another one that changes the meaning:
UK 318 They appeared to be men who simply wanted to
US 323 They simply appeared to be men who wanted to

UK 318 if this had to mean
US 323 if this meant

And that's it. I didn't note many minor changes, such as those to Otto's
dialect, or the capitalization, or most of the punctuation where it didn't
seem to make a serious difference.

*sigh* That copy editor could have made the job much easier by just
accepting that pTerry knew what he was doing.

=Tamar

Quantum Moth

unread,
Jan 31, 2001, 8:16:12 PM1/31/01
to
<mar...@mclapham.demon.co.uk>, aka Martyn Clapham, said a bit earlier...

> In article <MPG.14e27a2fd...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>, Quantum Moth
> <sc...@mostly.com> writes
> ><m...@unseenuniversity.org>, aka MP, said a bit earlier...
> >>
> >> There is a logic behind discussing Time Team on here though:
> >> RTony-sorry Tony Robinson- reads the DW books for Corgi and presents
> >> Time Team.
> >>
> >Sorry, but whyfore RTony?
> >
> Looks like another mis-understanding of the Pterry gag. :-(((
>
Ah. Thought so. Isn't that in a FAQ somewhere...?

--
thom willis - sc...@mostly.com - Corinne's Worse Half
Good breeding since 9.2.00 | http://sanctuary.orcon.net.nz
http://afpmovie.orcon.net.nz - for all your hubris needs!

don't love me. don't leave me.

Lee Ann Rucker

unread,
Jan 31, 2001, 9:59:45 PM1/31/01
to

>>p.103 UK pillock
>>p.100 US idiot
>
>Is 'pillock' a word over there? (My spillchucker doesn't like it even
>here.)

No, but it's a great word, and once you look it up you realize it's the
*perfect* word to describe Tom Green.

(If you don't know who he is - he had a show on MTV where he acted like a
complete pillock. One of the things on his show was the operation to
remove a cancerous bit of his body, after which he was a pillock. Pity
the joke is lost on most Merkins)

--
Working at Apple for Javasoft
laru...@apple.com <- new address!
Also at (but not very often) leeann...@eng.sun.com

MP

unread,
Feb 1, 2001, 10:54:29 AM2/1/01
to
Hmm, he may be wrong, but MP thinks that Quantum Moth

<sc...@mostly.com> wrote, on Thu, 1 Feb 2001 01:16:12 -0000, that:

><mar...@mclapham.demon.co.uk>, aka Martyn Clapham, said a bit earlier...
>> In article <MPG.14e27a2fd...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>, Quantum Moth
>> <sc...@mostly.com> writes
>> ><m...@unseenuniversity.org>, aka MP, said a bit earlier...
>> >>
>> >> There is a logic behind discussing Time Team on here though:
>> >> RTony-sorry Tony Robinson- reads the DW books for Corgi and presents
>> >> Time Team.
>> >>
>> >Sorry, but whyfore RTony?
>> >
>> Looks like another mis-understanding of the Pterry gag. :-(((
>>
>Ah. Thought so. Isn't that in a FAQ somewhere...?

It is in a FAQ. So? Look, am just getting brainwashed by this NG. Will
start calling you two MQuantum and CMartin if not careful - is just
continual referencing and purely down to my rather deranged brain.
Anyway, I caught it...

MP

Richard Eney

unread,
Feb 1, 2001, 3:27:02 PM2/1/01
to
In article <95a8hc$5bc$1...@saltmine.radix.net>,
Richard Eney <dic...@Radix.Net> wrote:

Drat it, I made a goof and also missed one...

Further TT spoilers

changes made between the UK and the US editions.

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

I had these switched around in my earlier post:
UK 111 what did you say to our Rene?
US 109 what did you say to our Mary?

UK 280 Music viz Rocks in!
US 289 Music vid Rocks in!

I don't think "vid" is Otto's usual style of accent, in either
version. Maybe the editor was thinking of rock videos.

=Tamar

Andrew Foley

unread,
Feb 1, 2001, 4:00:55 PM2/1/01
to

Richard Eney (Tamar, really) wrote in message
<958c0k$a91$1...@saltmine.radix.net>...

<snip>

leaving

in

some

spoiler

space

just

in

case

>UK 144 2p
>US 142 tuppence
>
>"Tuppence" even in the US where that currency was never used still
>expresses a different attitude toward the amount than "2p" does.


Real world usages may be of relevance here. "Tuppence" was the conventional
and correct way of pronouncing "2d", the two-pence amount of money in the
pre-decimal era. On 15 February 1971 the 240d pound was replaced by a 100p
pound of the same value. The new 2p two-pence value (worth 4.8 of the old
pennies) was to be pronounced "two new pence", and later (when the "new"
wasn't so new) "two pence". The Government tried to ban^Wdiscourage the
people from pronouncing it as "two pee" (on the grounds that the old version
was never pronounced "two dee"), but they did anyway, and most still do. It
is never, ever pronounced "tuppence".

Only old chaps like me can remember shillings and florins and half-crowns
and guineas, and thruppenny bits.(1)(2) Ah, the good old days....

(1) A thruppenny bit was the "3d" coin, a quarter of a shilling (an
eightieth of a pound). There was no tuppenny coin.
(2) Robert Rankin's Brentonians still trade in pre-decimal money, though....

Richard Eney

unread,
Feb 1, 2001, 9:06:14 PM2/1/01
to
In article <3a79c...@news2.prserv.net>,
Andrew Foley <anf...@attglobal.net> wrote:

<snip>


>(1) A thruppenny bit was the "3d" coin, a quarter of a shilling (an
>eightieth of a pound). There was no tuppenny coin.

Nevertheless ... A-M uses a unique combination of pence and dollars. The
pence appear to be the old-style pence, and a tuppence almost certainly
exists, as a copper tuppence was issued in the reign of George III,
though the old silver tuppences were only coined for Maundy Money after
1662. (OED, under "twopence")

So I think there are two possibilities:
(1) pTerry's original version was 'tuppence' or perhaps 'twopence' and
the UK editor changed it automatically, but the US editor, not having a
gummint order behind them (leaning over and glowering no doubt), left it
alone.
(2) The original was 2p (unlikely IMO, since previously pTerryOBE has
used 'pence') and the US editor automatically changed it to being spelled
out. Almost every other number was spelled out in the US edition, so I
have to consider this possibility.

Thanks for pl(ough/ow)ing through all this.

=Tamar

Andrew Foley

unread,
Feb 2, 2001, 2:22:44 AM2/2/01
to

Andrew Foley wrote in message ...

<snip, snip, snip>

>(2) Robert Rankin's Brentonians still trade in pre-decimal money,
though....


Oops. My own careless copy-editing in a thread about copy-editing. That
should be "Brentfordians".


Steven Patterson

unread,
Feb 2, 2001, 5:38:15 AM2/2/01
to
"MP" <m...@unseenuniversity.org> wrote in message
news:3a79213...@news.york.ac.uk...

> It is in a FAQ. So? Look, am just getting brainwashed by this NG. Will
> start calling you two MQuantum and CMartin if not careful

Hmm, I could be "pSteven" and satisfy both quite happily.

But I won't.

--
Steven P.
...... ......
.. These words are not my own they only come when I'm alone ..
...... ......


Terry Pratchett

unread,
Feb 2, 2001, 4:28:22 AM2/2/01
to
In article <95a8hc$5bc$1...@saltmine.radix.net>, Richard Eney
<dic...@Radix.Net> writes

>The end is in sight. Further TT spoilers in this last
>section of the changes made between the UK and the US editions.

I've watched this thread with interest.

Some of the changes I made, because of the US publishing industry's
belief that Tisoftheeans are dumb and shouldn't be faced with things
that are new or unfamiliar -- and this is a powerful factor. Some were
made by the US copy editor out of a belief that an adherence to Webster
over-rules any consideration of natural speech rhythms. Some were made
because it's very, very hard to find a copy editor who doesn't have the
urge to tinker.

Hah. In Thief of Time the battle over 'biscuit' and 'rusk' went to the
mat!
--
Terry Pratchett

Cindy Hamilton

unread,
Feb 2, 2001, 7:47:04 AM2/2/01
to
In article <7nZJLKA2...@unseen.demon.co.uk>,


Would it help if we wrote your publisher? I'd like to think your
U.S. fans are above average.

I've purchased the British editions of Discworld books that are not
available in U.S. editions, and I really don't have any trouble.
Perhaps one or two jokes that really depend on an in-depth knowledge
of Brit culture pass me by, but copy editing won't help that.

Cindy Hamilton


Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/

Ambitious_Wench

unread,
Feb 2, 2001, 8:37:38 AM2/2/01
to
In article <7nZJLKA2...@unseen.demon.co.uk>, "Terry Pratchett"
<tprat...@unseen.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> Some of the changes I made, because of the US publishing industry's
> belief that Tisoftheeans are dumb and shouldn't be faced with things
> that are new or unfamiliar --

::::zooom:::
(right over my head)
Um, "Tisoftheeans"? I assume from context you refer to Merkans. I've
vocalised it, and it still escapes me utterly. Kindly ellucidate? I know
I'll prolly feel foolish because it's glaringly self evident, but hey,
I'll get over it.

And I *wish* that publishers would get over that idea. I'm living proof
it's *not* true.

--
Ambitious Wench
Proud member of Meg Thornton's killfile since Jan 31, 2001.
"Ignorance is curable. Stupidity isn't."

Suzi

unread,
Feb 2, 2001, 8:51:58 AM2/2/01
to
Ambitious_Wench <A...@invaliddomain.com(invalid)> wrote in message
news:20010202.083737.1034949299.2210@Compost_Bin.python.domain...
[Snip]

> ::::zooom:::
> (right over my head)
> Um, "Tisoftheeans"? I assume from context you refer to Merkans. I've
> vocalised it, and it still escapes me utterly. Kindly ellucidate? I
know
> I'll prolly feel foolish because it's glaringly self evident, but hey,
> I'll get over it.

Think of the Merkin National Anthem... now sing it with a Merkin
"slur"... get it now?

Suzi


Mary MacTavish

unread,
Feb 2, 2001, 9:20:07 AM2/2/01