[R] TT changes: editor or typo?
Richard Eney
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
> 2
>
> 4
>
> 6
>
> 8
>
> 10
>
> 12
>
> 14
>
> 16
>
> 18
>
> 20
>
> 22
>
> 24
>
> 26
>
> 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.
>
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
>
>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
"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
> >
>>
> > 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
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
"David Chapman" <anti...@evildeath.madasafish.com> wrote in message
news:t7c5m9i...@corp.supernews.com...
argument that the third entity in the boat could be a dwarf and consequently
"it" is appropriate.
Chris
Richard Eney
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.
>
>>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
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
>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
>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
"Miq" <Mi...@kew1.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:nOz+tJAc...@kew1.demon.co.uk...
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
> >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
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
"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
> "Cliff" <jc...@space.com> wrote ...
> > Turnips are funny, too. A potato is not funny. A potatoe is.
> 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
<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
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
"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
>>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
>
> 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
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
> 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
"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.
>
Stevie D
> 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
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
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
For "from whence"? Looks more like terminal unfitness for this
particular job to me.
Richard
MP
<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
>
> 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.
>
--
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
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
<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?
>
Richard Eney
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
> 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. :-(((
>
--
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
>>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
<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
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
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
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
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
> 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
>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
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
> 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
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
>Think of the Merkin National Anthem... now sing it with a Merkin
>"slur"... get it now?
Well, almost ...
"My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing ..."
Sing it to the tune of "God Save the Queen." But our national anthem
is "The Star-Spangled Banner."
.
Mary MacTavish
http://www.prado.com/~iris
jen_b...@my-deja.com
> Ambitious_Wench
> [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
Ooh, ooh, I know this one! <jumps up and down waving hand in air> [1]
That's not the National Anthem. The Anthem's the one that goes "OOOOHHHH
sayyyy can you SEEEEE, by the DAWNZerlee LIIIIGHTTT...".
The one you mean is the one TTTO God Save The Queen (excellent for
republicans/atheists to mumble instead of "sender victor'yus,
appynglor'yus"). My Country 'Tis Of Thee is, indeed, a wonderful and
patriotic tune. But it isn't the one that strains people's throats at
baseball games.
Jen
[1] I *knew* those Merkin relatives would come in handy some time.
--
my WxrtHlt-jwlpklz is still spoken of in tones of hushed awe and dread.
[Andrew Nevill on afp]
Ambitious_Wench
<Su...@lspace.org> wrote:
> Think of the Merkin National Anthem... now sing it with a Merkin
> "slur"... get it now?
>
> Suzi
Ah, the light dawns. Thank you.
Cliff
"Mary MacTavish" <ma...@removeleftoftheWwrexham.net> wrote in message
news:3a7ac1d6....@nntp3.tsoft.net...
> Sing it to the tune of "God Save the Queen." But our national anthem
> is "The Star-Spangled Banner."
Sounds like the name of a burlesque dancer named
Banner.
Spangles being common constuming.
Steven Patterson
news:95ea88$pjd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Would it help if we wrote your publisher?
Don't you mean "wrote TO"?
Sorry, I had to :)
Markus Pfeifer
Andrew Foley <anf...@attglobal.net> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
3a79c...@news2.prserv.net...
>
[snip quite a lot]
>
> 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....
Just out of curiosity:
what came after one guinea, one guinea-big (not to be confuse with one
guinea-pig!)? ;-)
... couldn't resist,
Markus
--
02.02.01 markus-pfeifer(AT)chello.at
Hopefully I've confused everyone enough with my random witterings now, so
I'll go away...
Terry Pratchett
<angelica...@my-deja.com> writes
>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.
Did the line "It hung in the air in the same way that bricks don't"
survive in the US edition of THHGTTG? If it did, it must have been
because Douglas Adams stood over it with a gun.
I've read the phrase 'Many Americans aren't familiar with...' in copy
editors' comments enough times to wonder if the publishing industry's
view of *a reader of books* is 'someone too dumb to be allowed in the
audience of the Ricky Lake Show.'
--
Terry Pratchett
Donald Campbell
Cindy Hamilton <angelica...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <7nZJLKA2...@unseen.demon.co.uk>,
> Terry Pratchett <tprat...@unseen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Hah. In Thief of Time the battle over 'biscuit' and 'rusk' went to the
>> mat!
>> --
>
>
>Would it help if we wrote your publisher? I'd like to think your
>U.S. fans are above average.
"...Wrote *on* your publisher..." might be a better idea. Big red letters
written backwards on his sloping forehead:
DON'T MUCK ABOUT WITH A MASTER WORDSMITH'S WORK!
Have to be a big forehead though.
Donald.
--
La Rustimuna Stalcato
don...@atuin.demon.co.uk
"Resistance is useless!" said the superconducting Cyberman.
Charles A Lieberman
www.deja.com/msgid.xp?MID=<957vv9$m6j$1...@saltmine.radix.net>
>No, but it's one I've become used to, and there wasn't any good reason to
>change it.
Do we want the books to be readable by people familiar with the ways of
pTerry, or do we want new readers?
--
Charles A. Lieberman Brooklyn, NY, USA
AFP Code 2.0 AGo/Li-US d(--) s: a-- U++>+ R F++ h- P! OS--:- C++ M-
!pp L(+) Ia W- c B Cn CC? PT--->++ Pu78 !5 !X MT++ e+>++ r y+* end
http://calieber.tripod.com/home.html
Quantum Moth
> Tamar 30 Jan 2001 22:14:49 -0500
> www.deja.com/msgid.xp?MID=<957vv9$m6j$1...@saltmine.radix.net>
> >No, but it's one I've become used to, and there wasn't any good reason to
> >change it.
>
> Do we want the books to be readable by people familiar with the ways of
> pTerry, or do we want new readers?
>
>
*ahem*
arse!
--
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!
if you can't understand bits, look em up. it's educational.
Flesh-eating dragon
Terry Pratchett wrote:
> I've read the phrase 'Many Americans aren't familiar with...' in copy
> editors' comments enough times to wonder if the publishing industry's
> view of *a reader of books* is 'someone too dumb to be allowed in the
> audience of the Ricky Lake Show.'
There was once a very good column in The Australian that mentioned
various common elements in American movies that /we/ don't understand
but are intelligent enough to understand /enough/, and asked why when
Americans import anything at all they insist on replacing anything
even remotely unfamiliar.
8'FED.
Medusa
> "Andrew Foley" <anf...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> [The next coin up from the penny]
>
> >was never pronounced "two dee"), but they did anyway, and most
still do. It
> >is never, ever pronounced "tuppence".
>
> False.
>
> Proof is by contradiction - I _do_ call it tuppence. (And I have no
> problems with anybody not understanding it.)
>
Agreed - tuppence here in Welsh Wales as well...
and, as I'm reliably informed, in Gloucestershire and Durham also.
--
Medusa
From Wales, where men are men and sheep are nervous
Christin Keck
The phrase "tis of thee" does not appear in the U. S. national
anthem. It appears in that tune we stole from you Brits, and to which
we applied our own lyrics. That song is known as "America The
Beautiful" and begins, "My country 'tis of thee.." Our national
anthem is that /other/ song we stole from you Brits (To Anachreon in
Heaven) and is known as "The Star Spangled Banner."
I suppose while I'm at it, we should also thank the Irish for "The
Waxie's Dargle".[1]
[1] We call that one "The Girl I left Behind Me."
--
=======================================================
CK, or as they say in Spain, "Yes, what?"
Visit my Universe: www.seekaye.com
Or visit my Alternate Universe: Geocities.com/SoHo/Square/4033
Christin Keck
<tprat...@unseen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Did the line "It hung in the air in the same way that bricks don't"
>survive in the US edition of THHGTTG? If it did, it must have been
>because Douglas Adams stood over it with a gun.
It did indeed survive. And thankdog for that, because it's one of my
personal favourites.
>I've read the phrase 'Many Americans aren't familiar with...' in copy
>editors' comments enough times to wonder if the publishing industry's
>view of *a reader of books* is 'someone too dumb to be allowed in the
>audience of the Ricky Lake Show.'
>--
>Terry Pratchett
It is my concerted opinion that most copy editors aren't familiar with
much of anything that Americans want; hence their predilection for
jamming insipid tripe down our throats on a fairly regular basis.
I liked the idea of writing to the editors and lettiing them know that
the audience WANTS the original work. Do you have names and addresses
where we might be able to do this? Or would this hamper your
relationship with your American publishers?
Christin Keck
wrote:
[HITS SELF ON HEAD WITH HAMMER]
Doh!
I'm sorry. The song is not titled "America The Beautiful". It is, as
is pointed out numerous times, entitled "My Country 'Tis of Thee." I
don't know who we stole America The Beautiful from,
Mary Messall
> [HITS SELF ON HEAD WITH HAMMER]
> Doh!
> I'm sorry. The song is not titled "America The Beautiful". It is, as
> is pointed out numerous times, entitled "My Country 'Tis of Thee." I
> don't know who we stole America The Beautiful from,
We didn't. It was written by Catherine Mumbletyrother and was nearly
made the official national anthem, when we got around to chosing one in
the '20s or '30s. Whoever told me this implied that it wasn't used
because it was written by a woman, but my theory is that Congress wanted
something a little more militaristic and dramatic, to intimidate other
countries.
-Mary
--
http://www.crosswinds.net/~mmessall/
"There's always a little dirt, or infinity, or something."
-Richard Feynman
Mary MacTavish
>
>I've read the phrase 'Many Americans aren't familiar with...' in copy
>editors' comments enough times to wonder if the publishing industry's
>view of *a reader of books* is 'someone too dumb to be allowed in the
>audience of the Ricky Lake Show.'
Madeleine L'Engle had a huge fight with American publishers (though
her books were originally published in the U.S.) who wanted to
punctuate "Mrs" in _A Wrinkle In Time_. She insists her characters are
Mrs Which, Mrs What, and Mrs Who -- those are their *names* -- but
copy editors just had to have their way, and some of them use Mrs.
instead.
I just quit my job as a copy editor today, for what it's worth, but I
like to think of myself as a sensible editor.
Eric A. Seiden
>It is my concerted opinion that most copy editors aren't familiar with
>much of anything that Americans want; hence their predilection for
>jamming insipid tripe down our throats on a fairly regular basis.
>
>I liked the idea of writing to the editors and lettiing them know that
>the audience WANTS the original work. Do you have names and addresses
>where we might be able to do this? Or would this hamper your
>relationship with your American publishers?
It's just this reason I order the British versions from either
FutureFantasy.COM or Amazon.uk -- it apalls me what a typical editor does to a
book.
-- E
--
==============================================================================
"I'm going to do what every San Franciscan does who goes to Heaven. I'll look
around and say, 'It's not bad, but it ain't San Francisco.'" -- Herb Caen
Administrator NHL Panthers and Panthers Affiliates/Prospects mailing lists.
"Imagine there's no heaven; it's easy if you try." -- John Lennon
Pro-Entropy BBS 305-994-3578 (56K/v90) http://www.darsys.com
Andrew Foley
Markus Pfeifer wrote in message ...
>
>Andrew Foley <anf...@attglobal.net> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
>3a79c...@news2.prserv.net...
>>
>> Richard Eney (Tamar, really) wrote in message
>> <958c0k$a91$1...@saltmine.radix.net>...
>>
>> <snip>
>
>>
>[snip quite a lot]
>>
>> Only old chaps like me can remember shillings and florins and half-crowns
>> and guineas, and thruppenny bits.(1)(2) Ah, the good old days....
>
>Just out of curiosity:
>what came after one guinea, one guinea-big (not to be confuse with one
>guinea-pig!)? ;-)
>
>... couldn't resist,
The guinea was the highest single unit of currency. It was a cunning trick
to allow the pound to be conveniently divisible by seven -- it had a value
of one pound and one shilling, in other words 21 shillings.
I never knew that fact of convenient divisibility until I read about it in a
footnote in Anthony Burgess's book _1985_. When I were a lad a ten-shilling
note was a lot of money, and a pound was riches beyond avarice....
Lee Ann Rucker
(Donald Campbell) wrote:
>In article <95ea88$pjd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>Cindy Hamilton <angelica...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <7nZJLKA2...@unseen.demon.co.uk>,
>> Terry Pratchett <tprat...@unseen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hah. In Thief of Time the battle over 'biscuit' and 'rusk' went to the
>>> mat!
>>> --
>>
>>
>>Would it help if we wrote your publisher? I'd like to think your
>>U.S. fans are above average.
>
>"...Wrote *on* your publisher..." might be a better idea. Big red letters
>written backwards on his sloping forehead:
>
>DON'T MUCK ABOUT WITH A MASTER WORDSMITH'S WORK!
>
>Have to be a big forehead though.
Written? Nah. Just send a cart carrying a dwarf press down the street at
'em. Makes a better impression.
--
Working at Apple for Javasoft
laru...@apple.com <- new address!
Also at (but not very often) leeann...@eng.sun.com
Tangawizi
"Eric A. Seiden" <dar...@pro-entropy.cbbs.cts.com> wrote in message
news:b28...@pro-entropy.cbbs.cts.com...
> she...@concentric.net (Christin Keck) writes:
[snip]
> It's just this reason I order the British versions from either
> FutureFantasy.COM or Amazon.uk -- it apalls me what a typical editor does
to a book.
This whole thread came as a bit of a shock to me. I always assumed that a
book was a book was a book, and I'm not entirely sure why they feel the need
to change anything at all. Pterrys books are so full of references and
allusions that even English people are going to miss out on some of them,
which only seems to make the little changes mentioned here even more
pointless than they were before. Part of the pleasure I get from reading
the books is that feeling you get, weeks or months later, in a totally
unrelated situation, where you read something or someone says something and
you think *Oh! So _thats_ where that is from*. Surely the same applies
here?
Tangawizi
Yes I'm new, and no *boo-hoo* I dont have a sig yet :(
jester
<mmes...@ups.edu> wrote:
>Congress wanted something a little more militaristic and dramatic,
>to intimidate other countries.
>
So they picked something that starts off with a question to a Mexican?
--
Andy Brown
Ambitious_Wench
<laru...@apple.com> wrote:
> Written? Nah. Just send a cart carrying a dwarf press down the street
> at
> 'em. Makes a better impression.
Listen carefully. Can't you just hear the groans of appreciation?
"makes a better impression...."
ROFL!
--
Ambitious Wench
"Ignorance is curable. Stupidity isn't."
(Please note: I don't read anything sent to my "from" addy)
Terry Pratchett
<sc...@mostly.com> writes
>So the books have to cater to the LCD?
That's a more complicated question than you think.
Copy editors are a strange bunch anywhere. There have been times when
I've been very grateful to them for picking up some pointy entirely
missed by me, the beta-test readers and the editor. When they do their
work well, nobody notices.
I think US copy editors *do* tend to assume that their readers are
hugely resistant to unfamiliar things. Trouble is, they are there and
I'm not. I might want to argue, but: I've seen US tourists ask to
change US dollars into British dollars, US fans who are kind enough to
send an SAE with their letters *invariably* send US stamps, and in
dozens of ways, when I'm dealing with Americans who seem quite bright,
they appear at a loss when dealing with the concept that other places
aren't the USA. In Europe, if you miss your turning you're in another
country. We're used to the idea that there are different places.
I treasure the experience of a US friend who send me a package from a
post office in a place that I can find on quite a small map, and where
you'd therefore assume the staff has some concept of foreign parts. He
was asked: where the hell is Uck?
I recently dealt with a US firm whose web site is professionally laid
out. They appear quite familiar with the concept of other countries.
But a Brit can't use their on-line order form without ringing their help
desk, because you need to trick the system in order to get it to accept
an address that isn't in the USA, Canada or Mexico.
The issue here is not stupidity, it's just a different cultural outlook.
I'm pleased to say that since the big take-over 18 months ago I get to
correspond at least as much with my US editor as my UK one, and to
*battle* with the copy editor over a number of points. I can fight and
often win a lot of them, but on others I can't argue.
I've also got to remember that Tisoftheeans on this ng are a
self-selected group (actually, so is *everyone else*, too) Are they
*typical* readers? I don't know. Based on my observations in the UK,
I'd say they aren't.
Terry
--
Terry Pratchett
Andrew Foley
Alan Bellingham wrote in message
<7m6m7tkv2ks38dfd6...@4ax.com>...
>"Andrew Foley" <anf...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>[The next coin up from the penny]
>
>>was never pronounced "two dee"), but they did anyway, and most still do.
It
>>is never, ever pronounced "tuppence".
>
>False.
>
>Proof is by contradiction - I _do_ call it tuppence. (And I have no
>problems with anybody not understanding it.)
For anybody over the age of 40, tuppence is the old 2d, worth a bit less
than 1p. Those of us who actually lived through the change of money in
Scotland have never referred to the 2p coin as "tuppence". To begin with,
it was "two pence" or "two pee", to distinguish it from the real tuppence
(which was never a coin, BTW. To give 2d without getting change back, you
had to offer 2 pennies, or 4 ha'pennies, or a penny and a 2 ha'pennies)(1),
and in Scotland at least, we've never lost that habit. Evidence from you
and further downthread is that Wales and (parts of) England have had a
different linguistic history here, but then your voowels aw went wrang aboot
seeven hunnert years ago. Nac Mac Feegles wae hae.
(1) I'm too young to have actually seen a farthing (źd) actually used.
Ambitious_Wench
<tprat...@unseen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I've seen US tourists ask to change US dollars into British dollars, US
> fans who are kind enough to send an SAE with their letters *invariably*
> send US stamps, and in dozens of ways, when I'm dealing with Americans
> who seem quite bright, they appear at a loss when dealing with the
> concept that other places aren't the USA.
Not to worry. We seem to be roughly ignorant of American geography, as
well. An airline ticket agent told of a caller wanting tickets to "Maconga".
When asked what state that was in, the customer huffed and said "you know,
MACONGA", and started swearing at the agent for being stupid. Turns out
the customer wanted to go to Macon, Georgia. (GA being the postal
abreviation for the state).
Conversely, a story is told of a New Mexico resident calling for tickets
to the Olympics in Atlanta, Georgia, which were being sold exclusively to
US residents. The agent refused to sell him any, because the agent
thought New Mexico wasn't in the US.
I wish I could remember the source for these stories. I believe I heard
them on NPR...
Sylvain Chambon
>The guinea was the highest single unit of currency. It was a
>cunning trick to allow the pound to be conveniently divisible by
>seven -- it had a value of one pound and one shilling, in other
>words 21 shillings.
>
>I never knew that fact of convenient divisibility until I read
>about it in a footnote in Anthony Burgess's book _1985_. When I
>were a lad a ten-shilling note was a lot of money, and a pound was
>riches beyond avarice....
Well, convenient divisibility was / is the whole point of the
imperial system, wasn't it? I don't remember exactly; but I think
there are twelve inches to the foot, therefore a foot was divisible
by 2, 3, and 4.
The "old" pound-shilling-pence-guinea-... system was based on a
similar idea.
Thing is, decimal is easier for adding and substracting. Does that
mean that nowadays the most common operations are adding and
substracting, while they used to be dividing and multiplying? It's
worrying -- have we become less intelligent?
For what it's worth, it is also the reason why there are 24 hours in
a day and 60 minutes per hour. Time hasn't been decimalised yet!
But... frankly... who thinks of 20 minutes as a third of an hour
rather than, well, 20 minutes?
Sylvain.
--
"Now it doesn't take long to explain all about the Web, and the
average person can grasp all the essentials and gain a good working
knowledge in less than than a lifespan"
- Robert Rankin, _Sex and Drugs and Sausage Rolls_
Keith Ray
"Ambitious_Wench" <Ambitio...@citnews.com (not read)> wrote:
[...]
> Conversely, a story is told of a New Mexico resident calling for tickets
> to the Olympics in Atlanta, Georgia, which were being sold exclusively to
> US residents. The agent refused to sell him any, because the agent
> thought New Mexico wasn't in the US.
Those poor people in New Mexico... I've heard LOTs of stories like this.
Since Texas is right between New Mexico and "Old" Mexico, WE know NM is
another state.
Keith Ray
gou...@lepcf.org wrote:
[...]
> Well, convenient divisibility was / is the whole point of the
> imperial system, wasn't it? I don't remember exactly; but I think
> there are twelve inches to the foot, therefore a foot was divisible
> by 2, 3, and 4.
>
> The "old" pound-shilling-pence-guinea-... system was based on a
> similar idea.
>
> Thing is, decimal is easier for adding and substracting. Does that
> mean that nowadays the most common operations are adding and
> substracting, while they used to be dividing and multiplying? It's
> worrying -- have we become less intelligent?
I never have divide a single decimal dollar... when the check comes, I
have to divide $34.79 by 5 people, but first I have to add a 15% tip to
the total.
Andrew Foley
Tangawizi wrote in message ...
<snip>
>This whole thread came as a bit of a shock to me. I always assumed that a
>book was a book was a book, and I'm not entirely sure why they feel the
need
>to change anything at all
Now there's naivete. Monkeying with texts is what editors do. Editors have
been "correcting" William Makepeace Thackeray's spelling (in _The History of
Henry Esmond_) for at least a hundred years, when he was deliberately using
archaic spelling to give the sense that the text had been written two
generations before he actualy wrote it. And a Penguin Classics text of a
Victorian novel will almost certainly have differences in the body of the
text from that of an Oxford World Classics edition.
And the trans-Atlantic copy-editing works the other way, too. British
editions of _The Catcher in the Rye_ were copy-edited very severely, and we
didn't get a correct text until Penguin replicated the original US edition
about five years ago. American editions of Frank Herbert's _Dune Messiah_
have a prologue that isn't in British editions. And in British versions of
Fritz Leiber's _The Wanderer_, on the first page the word "planetary" has
been
mis-spelled as "planatary" (an error that has been reproduced in every
British edition, showing that copy editors through the ages are truly
scientifically igorant), and on the second page the phrase "Project Moon"
has been rendered "Moon Project". I'm pleased to announce that the
mis-spelling of "Arrakis" as "Arrauis" at the beginning of the New English
Library edition of _Dune_ has been corrected, but it took at least fifteen
years.
Miq
>And the trans-Atlantic copy-editing works the other way, too. British
>editions of _The Catcher in the Rye_ were copy-edited very severely, and we
>didn't get a correct text until Penguin replicated the original US edition
>about five years ago.
My favourite example of this is _A Clockwork Orange_, which, until a
couple of years ago, had the whole of the last chapter excised from all
its US editions. Needless to say, this changes the end and thus the
whole sense of the book quite dramatically. (The film is based on this
truncated version.) At least Terry's work doesn't seem to suffer from
*quite* this level of tinkering...
To drag this post back on-topic: when I was going through the
annotations for _Feet of Clay_, I noticed that the US edition's page
numbers seemed to be *way* out of sync with the UK edition. I mean, I
expected a difference of a few pages either way, but by the end of the
book, there was a difference of upwards of 40 pages between the US and
UK hardback editions - which by my reckoning means that the US version
must have, on average, 15-20% more text per page.
But Tamar's comparisons in _The Truth_ show that the two editions are
very similar. Now, given that my edition of TT actually has *fewer*
lines per page than FoC, I can only surmise that the US editions have
changed format quite markedly in the meantime.
--
Miq
Deadlines looming? Teachers to impress? No time to read? Never fear!
The Discworld Homework Files: http://www.kew1.demon.co.uk/homework.html
Anthony Frost
don...@atuin.demon.co.uk (Donald Campbell) wrote:
> In article <95ea88$pjd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Cindy Hamilton <angelica...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >Would it help if we wrote your publisher? I'd like to think your
> >U.S. fans are above average.
>
> "...Wrote *on* your publisher..." might be a better idea. Big red letters
> written backwards on his sloping forehead:
>
> DON'T MUCK ABOUT WITH A MASTER WORDSMITH'S WORK!
>
> Have to be a big forehead though.
_ _ ___ _
| \ | |/ _ \| |
Shirley | \| | | | | | is all you need?
| |\ | |_| |_|
|_| \_|\___/(_)
Anthony
--
| Theory: Any film or TV programme starring Donald Sutherland |
| can be, or already has been, remade better. |
| M*A*S*H, Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Invasion of the Body Snatchers |
LunaMorena
> I wish I could remember the source for these stories. I believe I heard
> them on NPR...
Friend of mine went to visit her mother in Minnesota and somewhere along the
line mention of Iowa came up (that's where her dad lives and what was on her
ID at the time) and whoever she was talking to said, "Around here we
pronounce that OHIO." Uh, yeah.
Crap like that happens all the times in the US and it's really depressing.
People who live in California don't know where their own state Capitol is.
Most of the population is incapable of naming all 50 states (I'd personally
have trouble naming them all at once but the ones I leave out each time
would be different and I'd eventually get them all). And knowledge of
things outside of the states is even worse.
Personally I don't think there's any point in trying to "fix" non-american
humor for an american audience, because the people who are watching and
reading it in the first place are the ones who generally find american humor
boring and they want something DIFFERENT.
--
Sierra Kempster, http://www.lunamorena.net/
Please use "Reply-To" when sending email.
Cats regard people as warm-blooded furniture. --Jacquelyn Mitchard
Christin Keck
Thanks for clearing that up. I always thought it was a question about
whether female sheep can see in low light conditions.
Mary Messall
> Crap like that happens all the times in the US and it's really depressing.
> People who live in California don't know where their own state Capitol is.
> Most of the population is incapable of naming all 50 states (I'd personally
> have trouble naming them all at once but the ones I leave out each time
> would be different and I'd eventually get them all). And knowledge of
> things outside of the states is even worse.
I managed to really impress an exchange student from Spain by naming
them all in alphabetical order, in less than a minute. It seems a shame
to spoil my only party trick by telling you how its done, but since it
only works among furriners and old people anyway...
Everyone of my generation and younger seems to have learned the "Fifty
Nifty United States" song, the words of which run thusly:
ALambaalASkaARizonARkansa CALiforniacolorADo con et ic cut
delawareFLORda georgia haWAiiidaho illinoisINdiana. Iowa kansas
kenTUCKylouisiana mainmaryLANDmassachuttsetsMICHigan...
-Mary (minneSOtamississIPi missOURi montana neb ras ka, nev ad a.
NEWhampshireNEWjersey newmexico (beat beat) new york.
NORTHdakotanorthcaroLINa O HI O! OKlamhomoregonpennsalVANia (beat)
rhodeisland southcarolinaSOUTHdakatoaTENnessee TEX AS...
UTahverMONTvirGINia WASHingtonWESTvirginiawisconson WY OOO MING.)
elfin
> "Andrew Foley" wrote:
>
> >For anybody over the age of 40, tuppence is the old 2d,
> >worth a bit less than 1p.
>
> 2p, for _me_. That there is a tuppenny bit in the new
> currency helps. Perhaps _most_ people, but not the
> everybody that your phrasing requires.
Tuppence, two pence, two p, tuppenny bit, the big large copper looking
thingy(well I was only young at the time). But why just the over
forties? I am not 40 and I can remember 'pre-decimalisation'. I must
admit to not remembering very much, but I can remember.
> (And given that it's my forty first birthday today, yes, I
> am over the age of 40.)
Ah, all the best Alan.
elfin
--
* "2002: A Discworld Odyssey" * The Discworld Convention *
* Hanover International, Hinckley * August 16th-19th, 2002 *
* Web: http://www.dwcon.org/ * Email: in...@dwcon.org *
** On Line Membership Form Now Available **
Richard Eney
Miq <Mi...@kew1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>To drag this post back on-topic: when I was going through the
>annotations for _Feet of Clay_, I noticed that the US edition's page
>numbers seemed to be *way* out of sync with the UK edition. I mean, I
>expected a difference of a few pages either way, but by the end of the
>book, there was a difference of upwards of 40 pages between the US and
>UK hardback editions - which by my reckoning means that the US version
>must have, on average, 15-20% more text per page.
>
>But Tamar's comparisons in _The Truth_ show that the two editions are
>very similar. Now, given that my edition of TT actually has *fewer*
>lines per page than FoC, I can only surmise that the US editions have
>changed format quite markedly in the meantime.
Also, the page numbers slowly move apart and then back together again,
even though both editions have 37 lines per page.
I finally decided that it's a complex combination of elements.
First, the US edition has a larger typeface overall, so there are fewer
words per line.
Second, the current US publisher's style book requires that all dialogue
be on a separate line from anything about a character other than the one
who is speaking. Where the UK edition will have William say something and
then go on to tell what the other person's action was in the same
paragraph, the US edition moves the action to a new paragraph.
Third, the newspaper headlines and columns were usually done in a
different size type in the US edition, usually smaller (though not
always).
Fourth, the two editions begin counting page numbers differently, so
that blank pages and the title page, etc, are included in the page count
in one edition and not in the other.
Fifth, IIRC the US edition uses 3-space paragraph indentations and the
UK edition uses 5-space indentations. This doesn't seem like much, but
over several hundred pages it adds up.
When there is a lot of dialogue, the US edition fills much more space.
When there is a lot of narrative, the US edition somehow squeezes more
words into less space, despite the larger typeface.
=Tamar
Andrew Foley
Alan Bellingham wrote in message
>"Andrew Foley" <anf...@attglobal.net> wrote:
<snip>
>>For anybody over the age of 40, tuppence is the old 2d, worth a bit less
>>than 1p.
>
>You're still wrong. Tuppence is the old 2d, _OR_ the new 2p, for _me_.
That must be inconvient, having exactly the same name for a coin which has
140% more value than the previous, uncoined amount. If you asked me to lend
you tuppence, I'd give you 1p, and (even though I'm not an Aberdonian) I'd
want 0.4d(1) change. ;-)
>That there is a tuppenny bit in the new currency helps. Perhaps _most_
>people, but not the everybody that your phrasing requires.
There, you see, in Scotland the 2p coin has always been known as the "two
pence piece", not "tuppenny bit" by analogy with the old thruppenny bit
(which it almost, but not quite, equals in value). Because the expression
has always been "two pence piece", or merely "two pence" -- with a heavy
stress
on "pence" -- "tuppence" hasn't developed as a way of speaking about that
coin.
Indeed, pronunciation drift had brought the actual sound of the plural of an
old penny to sound more like "-pince", with that syllable always being
unstressed. The stressed "eh" vowel which has been retained in the Scottish
pronunciation of the new coinage has prevented expressions like "TU-pince"
and "THRI-pince" from evolving.(2) Presumably, in parts of England and
Wales, the stress has switched back to the first syllable, allowing the old
pronunciation to make a comeback. In Scotland, without a doubt, it is
pronounced "TWO PENCE", both words given equal stress. "Two-Penny" is not
returning into usage, so "tuppenny" cannot possibly make any headway.
Perhaps some other parts of Britain have this same idiosyncrasy; all the
evidence I've ever encountered on radio and television has not given me any
sign that English English (so to speak) is at all different in this respect.
Although the fact that Scottish vowels are radically different from English
vowels, which I alluded to in the part of my previous post that you snipped,
may also be a factor in this.
The original pronunciations of the new coinage were introduced to the people
on special BBC television programmes which played to the entire British
nation in February 1971.(4) The "PEE" pronunciation that the programmes
tried to discourage caught on instantly, but the "PENCE" pronunciation, very
heavily stressed, also took hold. Indeed, so successful was this
pronunciation that I've even heard people referring to "one pence" when they
mean "a penny".
I'm always puzzled that people are so fanatical about trying to save the
pound, since they weren't so vehement when it was abolished on 15 February
1971 and replaced by an impostor.
(1) Which works out at approx. 0.166666667p.
(2) I'm using capitalisation here (and subsequently) to mark a stressed
syllable.
(3) There is no (3). It got deleted in revision of this post.
(4) Why do I remember idiotic things like The Scaffold singing the stupid
jingle, "Give more, get change"? It's thirty bloody years ago, minus two
weeks.
Andrew Foley
elfin wrote in message ...
>Alan Bellingham wrote
>> "Andrew Foley" wrote:
>>
>> >For anybody over the age of 40, tuppence is the old 2d,
>> >worth a bit less than 1p.
>>
>> You're still wrong. Tuppence is the old 2d, _OR_ the new
>> 2p, for _me_. That there is a tuppenny bit in the new
>> currency helps. Perhaps _most_ people, but not the
>> everybody that your phrasing requires.
>
>Tuppence, two pence, two p, tuppenny bit, the big large copper looking
>thingy(well I was only young at the time). But why just the over
>forties? I am not 40 and I can remember 'pre-decimalisation'. I must
>admit to not remembering very much, but I can remember.
The over-40s have clear memories of the earlier money, and the younger
over-40s (I'm 43) went through primary school learning how to add, subtract,
divide and multiply it, never an easy task when 12d made a shilling, and 20
shillings made a pound. We were also taught how to calculate with Imperial
measures of distance, including "rods", "chains"(1) and "furlongs".
(1) That's a measure that's still in practical use today. One chain is
exactly the distance between wickets on a cricket pitch, 22 yards. Come to
think of it, racecourses still measure distances in furlongs.
Chris Share
(anf...@attglobal.net) says...
> I'm always puzzled that people are so fanatical about trying to save the
> pound, since they weren't so vehement when it was abolished on 15 February
> 1971 and replaced by an impostor.
Aah, but then it was a *British* imposter, not like this
furrin rubbish they're trying to introduce now... ;)
chris
Rocky Frisco
> The over-40s have clear memories of the earlier money, and the younger
> over-40s (I'm 43) went through primary school learning how to add, subtract,
> divide and multiply it, never an easy task when 12d made a shilling, and 20
> shillings made a pound. We were also taught how to calculate with Imperial
> measures of distance, including "rods", "chains"(1) and "furlongs".
I have a theory that one of the reasons the British dominated the world for
so long was the effects of the irrational coinage and currency. Not only the
shopkeeper or scholar had to comprehend the math; every dirty-nosed little
mudlark had to learn the numbers to survive, exercising the mind and brain
much more strenuously than the simple decimal currency would have required.
-Rock http://www.rocky-frisco.com
--
Ask your ISP to amend its TOS & assess fines for spamming and serious
abuse. Clean up the net without government intervention. Pass it on.
David Deephanphongs
<snip>
>I've also got to remember that Tisoftheeans on this ng are a
>self-selected group (actually, so is *everyone else*, too) Are they
>*typical* readers? I don't know. Based on my observations in the UK,
>I'd say they aren't.
>
>Terry
>
Actually, (at least up to a couple of years ago), the average Terry
Pratchett reader in the US would probably be significantly more open
different ideas than the (rather depressing) average US population.
After all, we're reading books by a British author, and, until
recently, they haven't been all that easy to find.
David
PS. Like "Tisoftheeans" - much better than being called a pubic wig.
PPS. I have to stop writing in fragmented senten
--
"Oh, a very useful philosophical animal, your average tortoise. Outrunning
metaphorical arrows, beating hares in races... very handy."
-- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)
Terry Pratchett
<ro...@rocky-frisco.com> writes
>I have a theory that one of the reasons the British dominated the world for
>so long was the effects of the irrational coinage and currency.
That's true. The soddin' great gunboats were just a cosmetic detail.
--
Terry Pratchett
Stephen Tempest
>[Rocky Frisco]
>>I have a theory that one of the reasons the British dominated the world for
>>so long was the effects of the irrational coinage and currency.
>
>That's true. The soddin' great gunboats were just a cosmetic detail.
So that must be why Britain never conquered Afghanistan - they
couldn't get the gunboats over the Khyber Pass...
Stephen
Flesh-eating dragon
LunaMorena wrote:
> Crap like that happens all the times in the US and it's really
> depressing. People who live in California don't know where their own
> state Capitol is. Most of the population is incapable of naming all
> 50 states (I'd personally have trouble naming them all at once but
Whereas the general _reputation_ is that Americans are so
mind-numbingly patriotic that every schoolkid learns the states by
heart.
(I mean, I know *my* states by heart, but I'm Australian, so 'twould
be sad if I didn't ... mind you some dreamers want to divide Aus into
51 "regions" to replace the states ... 'twas in the paper recently.)
Way back in 1994 when I did Year Twelve PES Geography, there was a
tiny little bit about American geography. Basically, we had to know,
in very broad terms (as in, accurate to within 1/4 the total area of
the USA) what parts of the country have the most population. Which I
suspect is a little more than Americans have to learn about Australian
geography ...
Adrian.
Charles A Lieberman
www.deja.com/msgid.xp?MID=<Ow9OsIAu...@unseen.demon.co.uk>
>Did the line "It hung in the air in the same way that bricks don't"
>survive in the US edition of THHGTTG? If it did, it must have been
>because Douglas Adams stood over it with a gun.
Why should this be presumed to befuddle US readers? When I find my TT
and get context for Tamar's lists I'm going to be asking that question a
lot
--
Charles A. Lieberman Brooklyn, NY, USA
AFP Code 2.0 AGo/Li-US d(--) s: a-- U++>+ R F++ h- P! OS--:- C++ M-
!pp L(+) Ia W- c B Cn CC? PT--->++ Pu78 !5 !X MT++ e+>++ r y+* end
http://calieber.tripod.com/home.html
Terry Pratchett
Lieberman <yvro...@voicenet.com> writes
>Terry Pratchett Fri, 2 Feb 2001 15:30:54 +0000
>www.deja.com/msgid.xp?MID=<Ow9OsIAu...@unseen.demon.co.uk>
>>Did the line "It hung in the air in the same way that bricks don't"
>>survive in the US edition of THHGTTG? If it did, it must have been
>>because Douglas Adams stood over it with a gun.
>
>Why should this be presumed to befuddle US readers?
Because I have in the past run into copy editors who would patiently
explain that the line made no sense.
One queried my copy with the line 'Do they have sauerkraut in Europe?'
--
Terry Pratchett
Mary MacTavish
<tprat...@unseen.demon.co.uk> said, about some copy editors:
>
>One queried my copy with the line 'Do they have sauerkraut in Europe?'
Ow, ow, ow.
I think editors, like teachers, should have a very broad general
education. Not all of us are quite so clueless.
And for 25 years, I've maintained the glow I achieved in sixth grade,
when I won the grade-wide spelling bee with "sauerkraut" :)
.
.
Mary MacTavish
http://www.prado.com/~iris
Keith Ray
<tprat...@unseen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <0eus7t0a5ltkevqs0...@4ax.com>, Charles A
> Lieberman <yvro...@voicenet.com> writes
> >Terry Pratchett Fri, 2 Feb 2001 15:30:54 +0000
> >www.deja.com/msgid.xp?MID=<Ow9OsIAu...@unseen.demon.co.uk>
> >>Did the line "It hung in the air in the same way that bricks don't"
> >>survive in the US edition of THHGTTG? If it did, it must have been
> >>because Douglas Adams stood over it with a gun.
> >
> >Why should this be presumed to befuddle US readers?
>
> Because I have in the past run into copy editors who would patiently
> explain that the line made no sense.
[...]
I know English teachers who would use that 'bricks' line as an example
of bad writing. They've probably seen too many imitations of that line
in their student's papers.
Chris
<morgan...@netyp.com.au> said:
<snip>
>Way back in 1994 when I did Year Twelve PES Geography, there was a
>tiny little bit about American geography. Basically, we had to know,
>in very broad terms (as in, accurate to within 1/4 the total area of
>the USA) what parts of the country have the most population.
In very, *very* broad terms--Along coasts, which, interestingly, is also true of
Australia. ;)
>Which I
>suspect is a little more than Americans have to learn about Australian
>geography ...
::Sigh:: Painfully true.
--
The world is too much with us; late and soon,/Getting and spending, we lay waste
our powers;/Little we see in Nature that is ours;/...for everything, we are out
of tune;/It moves us not--...I'd rather be/A Pagan...So might I,.../Have sight
of Proteus rising from the sea/Or hear old Triton blow his wreathéd horn.
Lee Ann Rucker
<k1e2i3t...@1m2a3c4.5c6o7m> wrote:
Not a few hours ago I mentioned having once seen "a brick of aerogel
hanging in the air in much the way bricks don't"
Aerogel, you see, is a lighter-than-air solid...
--
Working at Apple for Javasoft
laru...@apple.com <- new address!
Also at (but not very often) leeann...@eng.sun.com
Morgan Lewis
>
> 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
>
> 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.
>
> =Tamar
In moderate defense of the idiot in question, I must point out two
things, in the interest of openness. First, I often see Americans
giving rhetorical questions question marks, so it wouldn't be
unreasonable to do so here. Second, I don't see it here. I looked up
the page in my copy (couldn't remember the context), and it doesn't have
the question mark, it has the comma. So if yours has a question mark,
they must have made changes between shipments or something...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Lewis m...@efn.org mle...@cs.uoregon.edu
The Eclectic Quotes Page: http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~mlewis/
Morgan Lewis
>
> In article <0eus7t0a5ltkevqs0...@4ax.com>, Charles A
> Lieberman <yvro...@voicenet.com> writes
> >Terry Pratchett Fri, 2 Feb 2001 15:30:54 +0000
> >www.deja.com/msgid.xp?MID=<Ow9OsIAu...@unseen.demon.co.uk>
> >>Did the line "It hung in the air in the same way that bricks don't"
> >>survive in the US edition of THHGTTG? If it did, it must have been
> >>because Douglas Adams stood over it with a gun.
> >
> >Why should this be presumed to befuddle US readers?
>
> Because I have in the past run into copy editors who would patiently
> explain that the line made no sense.
>
Psh. I hope you explained (patiently or not), that the line makes
perfect sense if you have an imagination? I mean, it's not as if it's
hard to see how bricks would hang in the air if they did so....
> One queried my copy with the line 'Do they have sauerkraut in
> Europe?'
>
> --
> Terry Pratchett
My response would be "No, they've got Liberty Cabbage." Somebody that
stupid deserves to be muddled up even further. Looking at some the
stuff in this thread, and at comments in the past, I have to wonder if
American copy editors are picked at random from the ranks of junior high
drop-outs.
Cliff
"Morgan Lewis" <m...@efn.org> wrote in message
news:3A823330...@efn.org...
>
> Looking at some the
> stuff in this thread, and at comments in the past, I have to wonder if
> American copy editors are picked at random from the ranks of junior high
> drop-outs.
>
They have advanced degrees in the humanities, English Lit. etc., often from
very prestigious universities.
Terry Pratchett
<jc...@space.com> writes
Wow, degrees. I'm impressed. I was once asked by a copy editor what a
'policy of no first use' was, and this was in the early 90s.
Look, we need copy editors. At their best, they keep us from making
dumb mistakes. If they do their job well, you don't notice ( and I
suspect there are few occasions, outside this ng, where US and UK
editions are examined *line by line*).
If I've found 'typical' faults in US copy editors, they're
a) a timidity in their approach to what the US readership can understand
- and I have to assume that this is as the result of bitter experience;
and
b) a reluctance to relax the rules of 'correct usage' in the service of
character definition, sentence rhythm and so on.
I believe that an advanced degree in Eng. Lit, in this specific job, is
of less use that a few years as a sub-editor on a newspaper --
certainly if what is being edited is 'popular fiction'.
Terry
--
Terry Pratchett
lilith
>On Fri, 2 Feb 2001 22:56:03 -0000, "Medusa"
><med...@euryale.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Alan Bellingham :
>>
>>> "Andrew Foley" <anf...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> [The next coin up from the penny]
>>>
>>> >was never pronounced "two dee"), but they did anyway, and most
>>still do. It
>>> >is never, ever pronounced "tuppence".
>>>
>>> False.
>>>
>>> Proof is by contradiction - I _do_ call it tuppence. (And I have no
>>> problems with anybody not understanding it.)
>>>
>>
>>Agreed - tuppence here in Welsh Wales as well...
>>
>>and, as I'm reliably informed, in Gloucestershire and Durham also.
>
>I'll back that up. I'm from Gateshead originally, and now live near
>Durham. Was brought up to say tuppence.
>
Here in Glesca it's still tuppence to a lot of folk. Except to one of
my schoolfriends, who just looked blank when a shopkeeper asked her
for a pound and tuppence. I'm not sure whether this shows that the
word is dying out here, or whether my friend's ignorance was unusual.
lilith
<anf...@attglobal.net>
<sniplet>
>
>
>For anybody over the age of 40, tuppence is the old 2d, worth a bit less
>than 1p. Those of us who actually lived through the change of money in
>Scotland have never referred to the 2p coin as "tuppence".
I didn't, and I do. Something I picked up from Buddy grandparents, I
think. Until I read this I didn't know two (new) pence wasn't supposed
to be tuppence.