Translations from UK to US
Sue H
repeating.
I caught what I think is a minor error. In COS, there is a sentence
alluding to "Christmas tea" whereas easier in the books it was called
supper or dinner. I don't know why they just don't leave everything
as it originally was since it's the same language.
I mean we have technically British words here we all get so why change
some at all (I remember the debate over put-outer etc).
Unless of course I am mistaken and there's a special Christmas tea
drink?
PS I would have loved to have seen knackered instead of tired ... I
don't know why but I like that word for some reason.
super juf
"Sue H" <dah...@cox.net> schreef in bericht
news:869jc3htlmbchdg0j...@4ax.com...
Don't English people use "knackered" when they're tired after they've had a
lot of sex?
You'd probably like to use the word "fanny" as well....
Kim
Sue H
Nah, they just said tired or exhausted.
>You'd probably like to use the word "fanny" as well....
Nah, that reminds me of a Barbara Streisand movie. I believe that was
her name in the film. We say ass, butt, booty.
>Kim
>
Sirius Kase
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 17:05:58 +0200, "super juf"
>
>
>
>
> >"Sue H" <daho...@cox.net> schreef in bericht
But, that's not what the Brits mean when they say it. We've got our
words, but I'm not going to type them here.
Sirius Kase
> "Sue H" <daho...@cox.net> schreef in berichtnews:869jc3htlmbchdg0j...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> >I don't know if this has been discussed per se; I hope it's not
> > repeating.
>
> > I caught what I think is a minor error. In COS, there is a sentence
> > alluding to "Christmas tea" whereas easier in the books it was called
> > supper or dinner. I don't know why they just don't leave everything
> > as it originally was since it's the same language.
>
> > I mean we have technically British words here we all get so why change
> > some at all (I remember the debate over put-outer etc).
>
> > Unless of course I am mistaken and there's a special Christmas tea
> > drink?
>
> > PS I would have loved to have seen knackered instead of tired ... I
> > don't know why but I like that word for some reason.
>
> Don't English people use "knackered" when they're tired after they've had a
> lot of sex?
"After sharing a long midnight watch, the kids were knackered."
Maybe those boring nights in the tent weren't so dull after all. If
only Jo had used the word knackered instead of tired.
"After sharing a midnight watch, the kids were knackered."
Ron Hunter
Many readers, especially children, might have some trouble understanding
some British/American word discrepancies. Better to avoid
misunderstandings, whenever possible. I read widely enough that these
rarely become a problem for me, and when they do, I refer to either a
British dictionary, or one of the websites that explain British slang,
such as;
http://www.peevish.co.uk/slang/e.htm
Welsh Dog
>On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 17:05:58 +0200, "super juf"
><juf_k...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>"Sue H" <dah...@cox.net> schreef in bericht
>>news:869jc3htlmbchdg0j...@4ax.com...
<snip>
>>> PS I would have loved to have seen knackered instead of tired ... I
>>> don't know why but I like that word for some reason.
>>Don't English people use "knackered" when they're tired after they've had a
>>lot of sex?
>Nah, they just said tired or exhausted.
>>You'd probably like to use the word "fanny" as well....
>Nah, that reminds me of a Barbara Streisand movie. I believe that was
>her name in the film. We say ass, butt, booty.
When I was young I read a book called "Fanny by Gaslight". I thought
it was going to be really rude... turned out to be a good book but no
sex in it at all... other than a brothel... and illegitimate daughters
and... well you ought to read it, it's not bad actually. :)
Turned out to be a reasonable film made in the 1940's as well but I
didn't know that then.
Welshdog
--
Australian Opinion http://australianopinion.com
News and views... for people like youse!!
Fat Sam
> I don't know if this has been discussed per se; I hope it's not
> repeating.
>
> I caught what I think is a minor error. In COS, there is a sentence
> alluding to "Christmas tea" whereas easier in the books it was called
> supper or dinner. I don't know why they just don't leave everything
> as it originally was since it's the same language.
>
> I mean we have technically British words here we all get so why change
> some at all (I remember the debate over put-outer etc).
And how insulting must it be for American readers when the publishing houses
chenged the word Philosopher to Sorcerer, simply because they assumed US
kids wouldn't understand the meaning of the word.
Come on, give the kids some credit for pity's sake.
> Unless of course I am mistaken and there's a special Christmas tea
> drink?
>
> PS I would have loved to have seen knackered instead of tired ... I
> don't know why but I like that word for some reason.
Knackered is a great word.
It can have so many meanings.
Fat Sam
Or when the engine in their car breaks.
It's not uncommon to have a greasy mechanic emerge out from under the bonnet
(hood) at the roadside, suck in air through his teeth and tell you "This is
gonna cost you mate. Your engine's knackered"
> You'd probably like to use the word "fanny" as well....
Hehehehe.
Fat Sam
yes, but in the UK, a fanny is a lady's hairy front-bottom.
Thom-Madura
THere is a basic flaw with the title of this thread. THe US version is
NOT a Translation of the UK version - they are edited simultaneously
from a Master Version from JKR.
THe US version has had information in it that the UK version did not
have (One about Dean Thomas).
Welsh Dog
<saman...@knox.orangehome.co.uk> wrote:
>Sue H wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 17:05:58 +0200, "super juf"
>> <juf_k...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> "Sue H" <dah...@cox.net> schreef in bericht
>>> news:869jc3htlmbchdg0j...@4ax.com...
<snip>
>>> You'd probably like to use the word "fanny" as well....
>> Nah, that reminds me of a Barbara Streisand movie. I believe that was
>> her name in the film. We say ass, butt, booty.
>yes, but in the UK, a fanny is a lady's hairy front-bottom.
ROFL... that is *such* a bizarre expression :)
Thom-Madura
> Sue H wrote:
>> I don't know if this has been discussed per se; I hope it's not
>> repeating.
>>
>> I caught what I think is a minor error. In COS, there is a sentence
>> alluding to "Christmas tea" whereas easier in the books it was called
>> supper or dinner. I don't know why they just don't leave everything
>> as it originally was since it's the same language.
>>
>> I mean we have technically British words here we all get so why change
>> some at all (I remember the debate over put-outer etc).
>
> And how insulting must it be for American readers
This has been gone over hundreds of times here.
1 - JKR is the copyright holder - only she can authorize changes in her
manuscript according to international copyright law. JKR made the
changes - maybe as a result of recommendation - but nevertheless - it
was NOT a publishing house or editor or anyone else who had the FINAL
say - it was JKR.
2 - THe change was NOT made because KIDs would not understand the term -
it was a marketing move to make the book more sellable because of the
way the term Philosopher would have been thought of in the US. Clearly -
this was to maximize sales.
3 - Most US kids did not know that the change was made - or any changes
were made. THere are probably still quite a number who do not.
4 - That JKR chose to make a version of her books for her largest and
most profitable audience is not insulting. I would imagine that Brits
would be insulted that she decided that he UK edition was inadequate for
the US market.
Ron Hunter
> Sue H wrote:
>> I don't know if this has been discussed per se; I hope it's not
>> repeating.
>>
>> I caught what I think is a minor error. In COS, there is a sentence
>> alluding to "Christmas tea" whereas easier in the books it was called
>> supper or dinner. I don't know why they just don't leave everything
>> as it originally was since it's the same language.
>>
>> I mean we have technically British words here we all get so why change
>> some at all (I remember the debate over put-outer etc).
>
> And how insulting must it be for American readers when the publishing houses
> chenged the word Philosopher to Sorcerer, simply because they assumed US
> kids wouldn't understand the meaning of the word.
> Come on, give the kids some credit for pity's sake.
>
If they didn't, then a few seconds research with Google would have told
them.
Ron Hunter
British lady were trying to 'get it on'....
Ron Hunter
Are you saying that JKR writes two versions? If not, then it is edited
to convert some terms into ones that will be recognized better by the
average American. To me, that qualifies as being 'translated'.
Ron Hunter
books have been translated, and to approve the final translation of each
and every one? BULL!
Welsh Dog
wrote:
>Fat Sam wrote:
>> Sue H wrote:
>>> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 17:05:58 +0200, "super juf"
>>> <juf_k...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> "Sue H" <dah...@cox.net> schreef in bericht
>>>> news:869jc3htlmbchdg0j...@4ax.com...
<snip>
>>>> You'd probably like to use the word "fanny" as well....
>>> Nah, that reminds me of a Barbara Streisand movie. I believe that was
>>> her name in the film. We say ass, butt, booty.
>> yes, but in the UK, a fanny is a lady's hairy front-bottom.
>That could lead to some interesting problems if an American and a
>British lady were trying to 'get it on'....
Could also lead to an embarrassing re-interpretation of the expression
'fanny-pack' :)
Welsh Dog
wrote:
>Thom-Madura wrote:
>> super juf wrote:
>>> "Sue H" <dah...@cox.net> schreef in bericht
>>> news:869jc3htlmbchdg0j...@4ax.com...
<snip>
>> THere is a basic flaw with the title of this thread. THe US version is
>> NOT a Translation of the UK version - they are edited simultaneously
>> from a Master Version from JKR.
>> THe US version has had information in it that the UK version did not
>> have (One about Dean Thomas).
>Are you saying that JKR writes two versions? If not, then it is edited
>to convert some terms into ones that will be recognized better by the
>average American. To me, that qualifies as being 'translated'.
Edited rather than translated :)
Sirius Kase
> 4 - That JKR chose to make a version of her books for her largest and
> most profitable audience is not insulting. I would imagine that Brits
> would be insulted that she decided that he UK edition was inadequate for
> the US market.
>
Brits who feel insulted that "their version" wasn't good enough. Sour
grapes.
Sirius Kase
Huh? Where did he say that? do you have a comprehension problem?
hanso...@hotmail.com
I hate to admit it, but I think there is a lot of truth to that. Not
that the title itself is particularly British, but its removal is a
flagship for the other changes. We naturally want to export our
culture, particularly in response to the vast flow coming the other
way, and these books are a perfect vehicle for doing so. What better
opportunity to do a little exporting of our own? But then it gets
nipped in the bud: the new words that might have entered the American
lexicon are denied entry by Customs. (Of course, the books *do* export
our culture in a big way, but one tends to notice the failures more
than the successes.)
Americanisms have enriched our language greatly, but there are so many
of them that it can sometimes feel a bit like an invasion. It would be
more palatable if the exchange were a little less one-sided. Not only
that, but the reasons put forward for many of the changes in the books
seem wholly inadequate to us, given our long experience on the
receiving end. It smacks of a "not invented here" attitude, an embargo
on un-American language.
The above is absurd, of course, and only an idiot would take such
thoughts seriously. But they do make an appearance in the mind before
being shot down by reason, and they spring from a vague sense of
having been slapped in the face by Uncle Sam. National pride has deep
roots.
--
Mike.
Ron Hunter
Ron Hunter
There are MANY differences between UK and US word usages, and totally
different meanings for some fairly common words.
For instance:
"I am going over early this morning to knock up my girlfriend."
The sentence means a totally different thing to a UK and US audience.
Welsh Dog
wrote:
>Sirius Kase wrote:
>> On Aug 20, 11:05 pm, Ron Hunter <rphun...@charter.net> wrote:
>>> Thom-Madura wrote:
>>>> Fat Sam wrote:
>>>>> Sue H wrote:
<snip>
>>>> This has been gone over hundreds of times here.
>>>> 1 - JKR is the copyright holder - only she can authorize changes in her
>>>> manuscript according to international copyright law. JKR made the
>>>> changes - maybe as a result of recommendation - but nevertheless - it
>>>> was NOT a publishing house or editor or anyone else who had the FINAL
>>>> say - it was JKR.
<snip>
>>> So, you are saying JKR has to learn ALL the 62 languages into which her
>>> books have been translated, and to approve the final translation of each
>>> and every one? BULL!
>> Huh? Where did he say that? do you have a comprehension problem?
>>> 1 - JKR is the copyright holder - only she can authorize changes in her
>>> > > manuscript according to international copyright law. JKR made the
>>> > > changes - maybe as a result of recommendation - but nevertheless - it
>>> > > was NOT a publishing house or editor or anyone else who had the FINAL
>>> > > say - it was JKR.
>Right there!
Well yeah... seems pretty comprehensive you comprehend then!?! :)
Meghan Noecker
wrote:
>Sirius Kase wrote:
Ok, what does in mean to the UK audience? I beioeve there was a
sentence in one book where Mrs. Weasley knocked up some soup, and we
could get what that meant from the context. But this one I cannot get.
I know what it means here in the US, but my guess for this are
something like chat with, spend time with, help/assist, call on, etc.
Welsh Dog
<frie...@zoocrewphoto.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 05:46:45 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net>
>wrote:
>>Sirius Kase wrote:
>>> On Aug 20, 7:25 pm, Thom-Madura <thommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
<snip>
>>I don't think I would use 'inadequate'. More like less understandable.
>> There are MANY differences between UK and US word usages, and totally
>>different meanings for some fairly common words.
>>For instance:
>>"I am going over early this morning to knock up my girlfriend."
>>The sentence means a totally different thing to a UK and US audience.
>Ok, what does in mean to the UK audience? I beioeve there was a
>sentence in one book where Mrs. Weasley knocked up some soup, and we
>could get what that meant from the context. But this one I cannot get.
>I know what it means here in the US, but my guess for this are
>something like chat with, spend time with, help/assist, call on, etc.
US knock up = get pregnant
UK knock up = wake someone
Quite a substantial difference you'll agree??
Tho getting pregnant *can* be a bit of a wake up!!! :)
Rob Strom
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 04:26:04 -0700, Meghan Noecker
>
> US knock up = get pregnant
> UK knock up = wake someone
>
> Quite a substantial difference you'll agree??
>
My favorite US/UK difference was a sentence I heard in graduate
school from a student from the UK:
"I'm going out to try to pinch some fags".
Apparently this meant that he wanted to borrow cigarettes.
--
Rob Strom
Cindy Hamilton
> On Aug 21, 2:37 pm, Sirius Kase <SiriusK...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 20, 7:25 pm, Thom-Madura <thommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
> > > I would imagine that Brits
> > > would be insulted that she decided that he UK edition was inadequate for
> > > the US market.
>
> > Considering where most of the complaints are coming from, it is the
> > Brits who feel insulted that "their version" wasn't good enough. Sour
> > grapes.
>
> I hate to admit it, but I think there is a lot of truth to that. Not
> that the title itself is particularly British, but its removal is a
> flagship for the other changes. We naturally want to export our
> culture, particularly in response to the vast flow coming the other
> way, and these books are a perfect vehicle for doing so. What better
> opportunity to do a little exporting of our own? But then it gets
> nipped in the bud: the new words that might have entered the American
> lexicon are denied entry by Customs. (Of course, the books *do* export
> our culture in a big way, but one tends to notice the failures more
> than the successes.)
>
> Americanisms have enriched our language greatly, but there are so many
> of them that it can sometimes feel a bit like an invasion. It would be
> more palatable if the exchange were a little less one-sided.
I've acquired some British slang. Of course, I suspect that you were
hoping for wholesale rather than retail, and probably me using terms
like "wanker" or "peckish" or "bugger" isn't really sufficient
compensation.
Cindy Hamilton
jan...@erols.com
versions, having only recently become aware that such a thing exists.
foo.
maybe one day i'll order the set from amazonUK, or have my sister buy
it for me and ship it next time she's in london.
--j_a
Sirius Kase
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 04:26:04 -0700, Meghan Noecker
>
> >On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 05:46:45 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphun...@charter.net>
> >wrote:
> >>Sirius Kase wrote:
> >>> On Aug 20, 7:25 pm, Thom-Madura <thommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >>I don't think I would use 'inadequate'. More like less understandable.
> >> There are MANY differences between UK and US word usages, and totally
> >>different meanings for some fairly common words.
> >>For instance:
> >>"I am going over early this morning to knock up my girlfriend."
> >>The sentence means a totally different thing to a UK and US audience.
> >Ok, what does in mean to the UK audience? I beioeve there was a
> >sentence in one book where Mrs. Weasley knocked up some soup, and we
> >could get what that meant from the context. But this one I cannot get.
> >I know what it means here in the US, but my guess for this are
> >something like chat with, spend time with, help/assist, call on, etc.
>
> US knock up = get pregnant
> UK knock up = wake someone
>
> Quite a substantial difference you'll agree??
We are working on that. I looked at IMDB and noticed this film,
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0478311/ ,
doesn't have an alternate title for the UK.
Some day, all these quaint Briticisms will be completely eradicated
from your language. We have a whole industry for exporting culture.
Interestingly enough, the American on the street isn't worried about
exporting culture, just as long as he can get a Wendy burger when he's
hungry.
Sirius Kase
Alliance?
IYM
<jan...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:1187708428....@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
I agree!! I would have preferred it as well. It's like having steak
after living on hamburger for a while. (Not that you'd what steak every
night either).
But I see no reason why things have to be changed between the US and UK
books, esp. the title of the first book (Sorcerer's Stone vs. Philosophers
Stone).
(BTW, I'm 37 and I still watch the early versions of "Are you being Served?"
when they re-run it on the US PBS every now and then. Does that make me too
old?) :)
IYM
Ron Hunter
'proactive' at keeping foreign (especially English) words out.
Downright amusing to me, since English has so many French words, it is
hard to find any old Anglo-Saxon words there. The REALLY amusing thing
is that languages are 'living' things, in the sense that if they stop
changing, they are declared 'dead' languages, so the French government,
is, essentially, trying to kill the French language. Now isn't that ironic?
Ron Hunter
means in the US.
Ron Hunter
I can imagine the outcry if some US parent read in the books that Harry
was going to go upstairs and knock up Ginny. Bad Harry!
Ron Hunter
didn't get the full education. I will have check with my great-niece
who brought home the UK version when she left Ireland to see if she has
compared her copy with the one her Mom read.
Meghan Noecker
wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 04:26:04 -0700, Meghan Noecker
><frie...@zoocrewphoto.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 05:46:45 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net>
>>wrote:
>>>Sirius Kase wrote:
>>>> On Aug 20, 7:25 pm, Thom-Madura <thommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>>I don't think I would use 'inadequate'. More like less understandable.
>>> There are MANY differences between UK and US word usages, and totally
>>>different meanings for some fairly common words.
>
>>>For instance:
>>>"I am going over early this morning to knock up my girlfriend."
>
>>>The sentence means a totally different thing to a UK and US audience.
>
>>Ok, what does in mean to the UK audience? I beioeve there was a
>>sentence in one book where Mrs. Weasley knocked up some soup, and we
>>could get what that meant from the context. But this one I cannot get.
>>I know what it means here in the US, but my guess for this are
>>something like chat with, spend time with, help/assist, call on, etc.
>
>US knock up = get pregnant
>UK knock up = wake someone
>
>Quite a substantial difference you'll agree??
>
>Tho getting pregnant *can* be a bit of a wake up!!! :)
I knew it would be quite different, by wake was not even a guess. I
never would have figured it out withot some context.
Well, I supposed thay involve the similarity of being in bed, but not
asleep :)
Meghan Noecker
>
><jan...@erols.com> wrote in message
>news:1187708428....@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> well, all i know is that i would have preferred to read the UK
>> versions, having only recently become aware that such a thing exists.
>> foo.
>>
>> maybe one day i'll order the set from amazonUK, or have my sister buy
>> it for me and ship it next time she's in london.
>>
>> --j_a
>>
>
>I agree!! I would have preferred it as well. It's like having steak
>after living on hamburger for a while. (Not that you'd what steak every
>night either).
>
I agree. I think there were a couple words that did need to be
changed, but only a couple. Wasn't there one where somebody was told
to keep their pecker up?
But any other changes that might confuse kids could always have a
footnote at the bottom of the page. Or they could put a glossary in
the back. Anybody who can't figure it out from context can check the
back.
I know I found words in later editions (that had fewer changes) that I
didn't recognize. A couple puzzled me, but I figured them out. I now
know what trainers are.
Sue H
Some ones that confused me before was an English lady I lived next to
on the Air Base and she came over one day and asked if I had extra
nappies... and she mentioned my dust bin was still out. I was like
napkins? No nappies... you know for the girl's bottoms... ????
Eventually I got it but probably would be funny to an outsideer
looking at the exchange! I pretty much figured out what a dust bin
was, but didn't understand why it's called that. Was it originally
only to put dust in?
jan...@erols.com
I pretty much figured out what a dust bin
> was, but didn't understand why it's called that. Was it originally
hmm. coal dust maybe? or something to do with coal stoves?
--j_a
Sue H
Although older, I can't remember coal stoves, so that's not the first
thing I thought of, but it would make sense. It's odd how some words
become outdated in time and then others don't make sense anymore like
"dust bin" because those stoves are outdated, still survive!
Welsh Dog
Oh lord... all those jokes about "Mrs Slocombe's pussy"... British
humour at its worst. I used to love it :)
Meghan Noecker
>Some ones that confused me before was an English lady I lived next to
>on the Air Base and she came over one day and asked if I had extra
>nappies... and she mentioned my dust bin was still out. I was like
>napkins? No nappies... you know for the girl's bottoms... ????
>Eventually I got it but probably would be funny to an outsideer
>looking at the exchange! I pretty much figured out what a dust bin
>was, but didn't understand why it's called that. Was it originally
>only to put dust in?
I used to say it must be nappy time when somebody was tired. I was
just joking around. Then I learned what nappies are, and I don't say
that anymore.
On my nightowl group, we had a discussion awhile back about different
words because one came up.
We were talking about reading at night, after we were supposed to go
bed. And somebody mentioned using a torch under the covers. Those of
us in the US suddenly had the image of the bed catching fire.
DaveD
"Thom-Madura" <thomm...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:FToyi.63$HB...@newsfe12.lga...
> super juf wrote:
>> "Sue H" <dah...@cox.net> schreef in bericht
>> news:869jc3htlmbchdg0j...@4ax.com...
> THe US version has had information in it that the UK version did not have
> (One about Dean Thomas).
Huh - did I miss something here?! What was the extra info/ in which book?
Thanks
DaveD
Thom-Madura
> Thom-Madura wrote:
>> super juf wrote:
>>> "Sue H" <dah...@cox.net> schreef in bericht
>>> news:869jc3htlmbchdg0j...@4ax.com...
>>>> repeating.
>>>>
>>>> I caught what I think is a minor error. In COS, there is a sentence
>>>> alluding to "Christmas tea" whereas easier in the books it was called
>>>> supper or dinner. I don't know why they just don't leave everything
>>>> as it originally was since it's the same language.
>>>>
>>>> I mean we have technically British words here we all get so why change
>>>> some at all (I remember the debate over put-outer etc).
>>>>
>>>> drink?
>>>>
>>>> PS I would have loved to have seen knackered instead of tired ... I
>>>> don't know why but I like that word for some reason.
>>>
>>> had a lot of sex?
>>>
>>> You'd probably like to use the word "fanny" as well....
>>>
>>> Kim
>>>
>>
>> THere is a basic flaw with the title of this thread. THe US version is
>> NOT a Translation of the UK version - they are edited simultaneously
>> from a Master Version from JKR.
>>
>> THe US version has had information in it that the UK version did not
>> have (One about Dean Thomas).
>
> to convert some terms into ones that will be recognized better by the
> average American. To me, that qualifies as being 'translated'.
NO - JKR writes a master unedited version that is given to the British
and American Editors - AT THE SAME TIME. From that - the two different
versions are produced. They did not produce an edited British version
(Except for the first book) and then translate THAT one into the
American Versions - they were both produced at the same time. THerefore
- the title of this thread is wrong - the American versions were NOT
produced from the UK versions.
AS I pointed out - a section about Dean Thomas appeared in the American
Version and not in the British version - you can look that up on
mugglenet plus other things.
In addition - the word - "translated" doesn't really apply. The great
majority of changes in the books (BY FAR) were corrections in
punctuation, spelling, and usage (Word endings). Very few words were
really changed in the books.
Thom-Madura
> Thom-Madura wrote:
>>> Sue H wrote:
>>>> repeating.
>>>>
>>>> I caught what I think is a minor error. In COS, there is a sentence
>>>> alluding to "Christmas tea" whereas easier in the books it was called
>>>> supper or dinner. I don't know why they just don't leave everything
>>>> as it originally was since it's the same language.
>>>>
>>>> I mean we have technically British words here we all get so why change
>>>> some at all (I remember the debate over put-outer etc).
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 1 - JKR is the copyright holder - only she can authorize changes in
>> her manuscript according to international copyright law. JKR made the
>> changes - maybe as a result of recommendation - but nevertheless - it
>> was NOT a publishing house or editor or anyone else who had the FINAL
>> say - it was JKR.
>>
>> - it was a marketing move to make the book more sellable because of
>> the way the term Philosopher would have been thought of in the US.
>> Clearly - this was to maximize sales.
>>
>> 3 - Most US kids did not know that the change was made - or any
>> changes were made. THere are probably still quite a number who do not.
>>
>> for the US market.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> chenged the word Philosopher to Sorcerer, simply because they assumed
>>> US kids wouldn't understand the meaning of the word.
>>> Come on, give the kids some credit for pity's sake.
>>>
>>>> drink?
>>>>
>>>> PS I would have loved to have seen knackered instead of tired ... I
>>>> don't know why but I like that word for some reason.
>>>
>>> It can have so many meanings.
>>>
>>
> books have been translated, and to approve the final translation of each
> and every one? BULL!
No - she must not speak all the languages - but YES - she must approve
any and all changes in the books. I am sure that even in Britian - they
have heard of "translators" who could help JKR in that task.
Thom-Madura
>> most profitable audience is not insulting. I would imagine that Brits
>> would be insulted that she decided that he UK edition was inadequate for
>> the US market.
>>
> Brits who feel insulted that "their version" wasn't good enough. Sour
> grapes.
>
I agree
Sue H
I did not realize Dean wasn't in the British version. Is this the
biggest discrepancy? It's one thing to change words so their audience
might understand them better, but why would a character be left out?
Thom-Madura
> that the title itself is particularly British, but its removal is a
> flagship for the other changes. We naturally want to export our
> culture, particularly in response to the vast flow coming the other
> way, and these books are a perfect vehicle for doing so. What better
> opportunity to do a little exporting of our own? But then it gets
> nipped in the bud: the new words that might have entered the American
> lexicon are denied entry by Customs. (Of course, the books *do* export
> our culture in a big way, but one tends to notice the failures more
> than the successes.)
>
> Americanisms have enriched our language greatly, but there are so many
> of them that it can sometimes feel a bit like an invasion. It would be
> that, but the reasons put forward for many of the changes in the books
> seem wholly inadequate to us, given our long experience on the
> receiving end. It smacks of a "not invented here" attitude, an embargo
> on un-American language.
>
> The above is absurd, of course, and only an idiot would take such
> thoughts seriously. But they do make an appearance in the mind before
> being shot down by reason, and they spring from a vague sense of
> having been slapped in the face by Uncle Sam. National pride has deep
> roots.
> --
> Mike.
>
Actually - I have pointed out in the past that the books clearly retain
their basic Britishness in the American Editions. Virtually all of the
British words, phrases, and idioms remain. In actuality, very few words
were actually changed (Spelling may have been - but the words are the
same). It is only in the case where the British word either had a clear
American meaning that was not intended - or in the case where the
meaning of the word was not easily obtainable - where most changes were
made.
For example
The British word "jumper" was changed to "sweater" in one book when it
referred to a boys garment. In the US - a "jumper" is a GIRLS overdress
worn over a blouse - and is a common school uniform item. However -
since they DO use the word sweater as well in England, that was not a
big deal.
Another example
The word Skip was used to describe a garbage receptacle. It was changed
to dumpster - the US equivalent. If you look up the word "Skip" in a US
English dictionary, this meaning will not appear. In fact - if you go
online - many British English dictionaries do not include this meaning.
One More
Cell-o-tape is a British trademarked BRAND that is not sold in the US,
which was changed to Scotch Tape - the brand most used here. (ANd our
Brand sounds British too)
I take note that the British English language does not rise or fall on
these words - or the others what were changed. I tend to believe that it
was the change of the First Book that caused this argument more than the
minor changes in the other books. In addition, I also find that it is
rare that a Brit has read any of the American versions - if they did -
they would not be so upset about the changes. I have read all but the
last book in both editions - I spend a lot of time in Europe on the job
- so I have the British versions there. I must admit it is rare that I
even notice the changes.
Ostensibly, the changes were made for the children - and are complained
about by the adults. I prefer to believe that the Britishness of the
books survived virtually completely intact and was passed along to many
young American readers.
Thom-Madura
You will be really disappointed it you do - if you are expecting big
differences.
Much of this thread deals with what had been changed - which in Reality
is very little.
However - what they never say is that 99 44/100 percent of the books are
exactly the same - and as I have said - most have a hard time actually
finding the changes.
Even the BIG change in the first book amounts to a SINGLE word.
After reading the other version - you will be left wondering what all
this fuss is about.
Thom-Madura
No - I will be 29 years older than you on Thursday.
But - as I replied to "jankey" - you will be disappointed in reading the
two versions.
Even the BIG change in the first book really only amounts to ONE word.
It will be hard to even notice that changes were made.
You will read through the books and come back not knowing what this
thread is about.
mark....@gmail.com
> Thom-Madura wrote:
> > super juf wrote:
> >>news:869jc3htlmbchdg0j...@4ax.com...
> >>> I don't know if this has been discussed per se; I hope it's not
> >>> repeating.
>
> >>> I caught what I think is a minor error. In COS, there is a sentence
> >>> alluding to "Christmas tea" whereas easier in the books it was called
> >>> supper or dinner. I don't know why they just don't leave everything
> >>> as it originally was since it's the same language.
>
> >>> I mean we have technically British words here we all get so why change
> >>> some at all (I remember the debate over put-outer etc).
>
> >>> Unless of course I am mistaken and there's a special Christmas tea
> >>> drink?
>
> >>> PS I would have loved to have seen knackered instead of tired ... I
> >>> don't know why but I like that word for some reason.
>
> >> Don't English people use "knackered" when they're tired after they've
> >> had a lot of sex?
>
> >> You'd probably like to use the word "fanny" as well....
>
> >> Kim
>
> > THere is a basic flaw with the title of this thread. THe US version is
> > NOT a Translation of the UK version - they are edited simultaneously
> > from a Master Version from JKR.
>
> Are you saying that JKR writes two versions?
No, that her version is edited by two different people, and those two
different people's editorial idiosyncrasies are what show up now in
the differences between the British and US editions.
> If not, then it is edited
> to convert some terms into ones that will be recognized better by the
> average American.
They don't do that any more. Or they hardly do. Look at
http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/hbp/differences-hbp.html
For a comparison of HBP. A typical difference is
British: ...corridor. Tonks pulled open
US: ...corridor. She pulled open
There, it looks to me like the British editor thought it'd be clearer
if Tonks' name was mentioned, but perhaps the US editor thought it was
being repeated too much. It's not a difference in US and British
language.
For some reason, timetables in the British version were schedules in
the US. That does seem like an example of translation, but why
translate that and not, say, "jumper" (as they did in the first two
books) I can't understand.
There were also some other cases where an apparent attempt was made to
avoid a double entendre. "Got off with" changing to "Hooked up with"
being an example, although I'm not sure how much that helps.
Another clear translation: got toothache --> got a toothache
and one that surprises me: got --> gotten. (I mean, we do say
"gotten" here, but "got" is fine too.)
But the point is that these all have a different flavor than the
changes that were made in the first two books, which are the changes
that articles about this usually mention.
mark....@gmail.com
> > Sue H wrote:
> >> repeating.
>
> >> I caught what I think is a minor error. In COS, there is a sentence
> >> alluding to "Christmas tea" whereas easier in the books it was called
> >> supper or dinner. I don't know why they just don't leave everything
> >> as it originally was since it's the same language.
>
> >> I mean we have technically British words here we all get so why change
> >> some at all (I remember the debate over put-outer etc).
>
>
> This has been gone over hundreds of times here.
>
> 1 - JKR is the copyright holder - only she can authorize changes in her
> manuscript according to international copyright law. JKR made the
> changes - maybe as a result of recommendation - but nevertheless - it
> was NOT a publishing house or editor or anyone else who had the FINAL
> say - it was JKR.
>
> 2 - THe change was NOT made because KIDs would not understand the term -
> it was a marketing move to make the book more sellable because of the
> way the term Philosopher would have been thought of in the US. Clearly -
> this was to maximize sales.
In an interview, Levine made a point about this. Bloomsbury paid a
$5000 or so up front for the book. Scholastic paid $105,000. And it
was Levine's first big book under his own imprint. So he was under a
lot of pressure to sell a lot of copies. Actually, he suggested "HP
and the School for Magic" (which ended up being essentially the French
title, if translated), and she came back with Sorceror's Stone.
Still, it is a shame and it does make us look bad.
mark....@gmail.com
> hanson_m...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Actually - I have pointed out in the past that the books clearly retain
> their basic Britishness in the American Editions. Virtually all of the
> British words, phrases, and idioms remain. In actuality, very few words
> were actually changed (Spelling may have been - but the words are the
> same). It is only in the case where the British word either had a clear
> American meaning that was not intended - or in the case where the
> meaning of the word was not easily obtainable - where most changes were
> made.
>
> For example
>
> The British word "jumper" was changed to "sweater" in one book when it
> referred to a boys garment. In the US - a "jumper" is a GIRLS overdress
> worn over a blouse - and is a common school uniform item. However -
> since they DO use the word sweater as well in England, that was not a
> big deal.
But in the later books it was left as jumper.
> One More
>
> Cell-o-tape is a British trademarked BRAND that is not sold in the US,
> which was changed to Scotch Tape - the brand most used here. (ANd our
> Brand sounds British too)
I think this also shows up with the British name in the later books.
So even these examples tend to exaggerate the amount of changes in the
later books.
OTOH, the spellings would make the books feel very American to any
British readers.
Ron Hunter
up, but languages do tend to shorten phrases after some time.
Ron Hunter
had sussed out a word from context, only to find I was WAY off.
Ron Hunter
I am sure many children these days ask why we talk about 'dialing' a
phone number....
Language changes slower than technology, and we go on with our
accustomed ways of saying things. I gave up trying to convince my wife
to use 'recording' instead of 'taping' to refer to our capturing
programs on our DVR.
Ron Hunter
between the countries that use English. The first Australians I met, I
thought they were speaking an entirely different language!
Ron Hunter
I read a LOT of fanfiction, and those aren't 'translated' at all. Most
got to great lengths to preserve the British flavor of the writing,
including having people actually change the American writers' words into
the appropriate British versions, right down to the spelling. I find
this very educational. It does, on occasion send me to my online
British slang dictionary, or Oxford English Dictionary. But that is one
reason I read.
Ron Hunter
article adjectives, such as 'in hospital' rather than 'in the hospital',
and insists that companies are always plural nouns.
Those can really 'throw' an American reader. Most of us would never bat
an eye at 'colour', or 'honour', even though the US spellings leave out
the 'u'. My inline spell-checker didn't like either of them. Grin.
Ron Hunter
I can't see how that kind of change makes anyone look bad.
Ron Hunter
JKR writes in English, right? She writes in British English, with
BRITISH spellings, and BRITISH idiom, and BRITISH phrasing, such as 'in
hospital', rather than 'in the hospital'. She gives that manuscript to
her British and American editors, and they make changes. So who makes
the most changes? Who changes spellings? Who changes words to avoid
embarrassing confusion? Guess.
I call that 'translation'. You can call it anything you like.
Ron Hunter
I can't imagine she has the time to learn 62 languages, so that she
could intelligently discuss how to translate a term onto Greek, or even
Russian, let along Japanese. She would just have to trust them, or not
hire them. Sometimes it is quite difficult to make an English speaker
understand the exact meaning of even a German word, and English and
German share common roots, and have cross-pollinated for thousands of years.
I can't imagine that she can be that intimately involved with the actual
process.
Welsh Dog
wrote:
>Sue H wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 13:43:22 -0700, jan...@erols.com wrote:
>>> On Aug 21, 4:19 pm, Sue H <daho...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> I pretty much figured out what a dust bin
>>>> was, but didn't understand why it's called that. Was it originally
>>>> only to put dust in?->
>>> hmm. coal dust maybe? or something to do with coal stoves?
>> Although older, I can't remember coal stoves, so that's not the first
>> thing I thought of, but it would make sense. It's odd how some words
>> become outdated in time and then others don't make sense anymore like
>> "dust bin" because those stoves are outdated, still survive!
>I am sure many children these days ask why we talk about 'dialing' a
>phone number....
>Language changes slower than technology, and we go on with our
>accustomed ways of saying things. I gave up trying to convince my wife
>to use 'recording' instead of 'taping' to refer to our capturing
>programs on our DVR.
I tell our kids to 'pull the chain' when I want them to flush a
toilet... old habits are killers.
We've not had the high cisterns that needed chains to flush on toilets
for 40 years or more !! :)
Sabremeister Brian
Ron Hunter (rphu...@charter.net) spake thusly:
It's not just the meanings of words that can be difficult to
translate, it can be the meanings of phrases that can prove most
difficult. There is no equivalent phrase for "I could murder a curry,"
in Dutch - partly because The Netherlands do not have the same British
colonial history and have a less clear idea of the type of food curry
is, and partly because "murder" meaning "to really enjoy" has no
direct counterpart in Dutch. Spanish has no direct counterpart for
"shallow" (or is it "deep"? can never remember). Was it Nixon who was
described as being "so shallow, you could wade through the deepest
parts of his mind and not get your ankles wet"? That must have been
fun for the Spanish journalists.
And don't forget that many languages have tenses, cases and genders
for words which English has not. For instance, in Spanish, Death is
female. Hence, in Terry Pratchett's "Mort", Death was female in the
Spanish version. But in the later "Reaper Man", when Death is
unequivecably given a male identity, the Spanish translation had to
make Death male. They put in a footnote saying, effectively, "yes, we
know Death was a woman in the last one, but he's not now, so live with
it."
--
www.sabremeister.me.uk
www.livejournal.com/users/sabremeister/
Use brian at sabremeister dot me dot uk to reply
Sign in a shop:
"Credit will only be granted to people over 80
If accompanied by both parents"
Sabremeister Brian
Meghan Noecker (frie...@zoocrewphoto.com) spake thusly:
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 14:35:36 -0400, <IYM> wrote:
>
>>
>> <jan...@erols.com> wrote in message
>> news:1187708428....@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>> well, all i know is that i would have preferred to read the UK
>>> versions, having only recently become aware that such a thing
>>> exists. foo.
>>>
>>> maybe one day i'll order the set from amazonUK, or have my sister
>>> buy it for me and ship it next time she's in london.
>>>
>>> --j_a
>>>
>>
>> I agree!! I would have preferred it as well. It's like having
>> steak after living on hamburger for a while. (Not that you'd what
>> steak every night either).
>>
> I agree. I think there were a couple words that did need to be
> changed, but only a couple. Wasn't there one where somebody was told
> to keep their pecker up?
>
> But any other changes that might confuse kids could always have a
> footnote at the bottom of the page. Or they could put a glossary in
> the back. Anybody who can't figure it out from context can check the
> back.
>
> I know I found words in later editions (that had fewer changes) that
> I
> didn't recognize. A couple puzzled me, but I figured them out. I now
> know what trainers are.
For a long time, Terry Pratchett's "Johnny and the Dead" (a
children's/young adult book) was not released in the USA because
"no-one in the book is American, WWI happened on another continent
that American kids couldn't find on an atlas with three tries, and it
feels, ugh, European". I'm still not sure if it has been released over
there, but the success of the HP books (set in a British public
school, almost entirely takes place in Britain, no Americans, etc)
probably means that American editors are more open to the concept that
it'll be a seller.
Kids are more intelligent than many people give them credit for. And,
"It's not Brits who think American readers are a bunch of whinging
morons with the geo-social understanding of a wire coathanger, it's
American editors."
(Both quotes from Terry Pratchett, and can be found on the L-Space Web
http://www.lspace.org/)
--
www.sabremeister.me.uk
www.livejournal.com/users/sabremeister/
Use brian at sabremeister dot me dot uk to reply
"I want a lot of medical jargon, I'll talk to a doctor!"
"You are talking to a doctor."
- Mal and Simon, /Firefly/
Sabremeister Brian
1187713320....@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com,
Sirius Kase (Siriu...@gmail.com) spake thusly:
> On Aug 21, 9:52 am, Rob Strom <st...@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 21, 7:34 am, Welsh Dog <welsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 04:26:04 -0700, Meghan Noecker
>> ...
>>
>>> US knock up = get pregnant
>>> UK knock up = wake someone
>>
>>> Quite a substantial difference you'll agree??
>>
>> My favorite US/UK difference was a sentence I heard in graduate
>> school from a student from the UK:
>>
>> "I'm going out to try to pinch some fags".
>>
>> Apparently this meant that he wanted to borrow cigarettes.
>>
> Did you figure this out before or after you referred him to the Gay
> Alliance?
You could be wrong. If he'd been to a really old-fashioned public
school here, he might have wanted to pinch some second year servants.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fagging)
--
www.sabremeister.me.uk
www.livejournal.com/users/sabremeister/
Use brian at sabremeister dot me dot uk to reply
"The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the
cheese."
Sabremeister Brian
Welsh Dog (wels...@gmail.com) spake thusly:
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 04:26:04 -0700, Meghan Noecker
> <frie...@zoocrewphoto.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 05:46:45 -0500, Ron Hunter
>> <rphu...@charter.net>
>> wrote:
>>> Sirius Kase wrote:
>>>> On Aug 20, 7:25 pm, Thom-Madura <thommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> I don't think I would use 'inadequate'. More like less
>>> understandable. There are MANY differences between UK and US word
>>> usages, and totally different meanings for some fairly common
>>> words.
>
>>> For instance:
>>> "I am going over early this morning to knock up my girlfriend."
>
>>> The sentence means a totally different thing to a UK and US
>>> audience.
>
>> Ok, what does in mean to the UK audience? I beioeve there was a
>> sentence in one book where Mrs. Weasley knocked up some soup, and
>> we
>> could get what that meant from the context. But this one I cannot
>> get. I know what it means here in the US, but my guess for this are
>> something like chat with, spend time with, help/assist, call on,
>> etc.
>
> US knock up = get pregnant
> UK knock up = wake someone
>
> Quite a substantial difference you'll agree??
>
> Tho getting pregnant *can* be a bit of a wake up!!! :)
Knocking up some sort of meal is also a recognised use of the phrase,
although it's more often said as "knocked some soup up". Going over to
someone's house ot wake them up is sometimes referred to as going to
"knock on" them.
--
www.sabremeister.me.uk
www.livejournal.com/users/sabremeister/
Use brian at sabremeister dot me dot uk to reply
"I just got lost in thought
It was unfamiliar territory"
Sue H
wrote:
that's right. Didn't I hear her in an interview that they only changed
one or two words (no grammar even etc) on almost all her work?
Actually, what happens before even translations is it goes to an
editor who looks for mispellings, grammar issues, continuity errors,
repetitive things etc. She is one of the people who actually turned
her work in with no red coming back! I can imagine my writing; it'd
be opposite; more red than anything!
Sue H
wrote:
At some point in the process you become so busy and rich you have to
hire people you trust to do these things. I agree, no way could she
read all that in all those languages! However, she probably says
something like "you translate it to the best of your ability trying
not to make changes if possible" and then has someone independent go
back over it for her to make sure it's true to her as possible. I
know she's a stickler for her story to remain true to what she
intended.
Green-Eyed Chris
Welsh Dog <wels...@gmail.com> wrote:
The last one I used was about 20 years ago in an old tavern that had
survived the war. I found myself checking the back of the cistern to see
if there was a clean gun taped to it (old American habit).
--
Chris
Thom-Madura
No - he was not left out - but there was a paragraph about him in the US
version that was not in the UK version
Thom-Madura
That means that you have not read the two editions either. Having done
so - you would have a hard time saying that. I suggest you go to
mugglenet and actually look a the words that were changed.
Thom-Madura
Are YOU in the 8-12 year old range of age the books were originally
targeted to?
Plus - there is always an assumption that EVERYONE has access to the
internet - which is also not the case among that age group.
Thom-Madura
I agree.
The purpose of writing a book is to make money - not to educate. I admit
that education may the purpose of some text books that sell in smaller
numbers - but even those are priced to make money for the publisher.
While today - it may look like a greedy author looking to make a buck -
that is only because we know She has made a lot of money - back then -
she was not in that position and wanted to establish herself.
Thom-Madura
THe title of the thread was the translation from UK to US. THe US
version is not a translation of the UK version - period. THere are
different words in both.
ALSO - you will note that well over 99 percent of the words in both
versions are the SAME.
Editors do no make "translations" - they make corrections.
Thom-Madura
On any day = lots of people in charge make decisions that they
themselves really have little understanding of and that is why they have
specialists to do things for them. I do not have complete knowledge of
the movie and TV industry, yet in my position, I must approve the
expenditure of millions of dollars. My company will hold ME responsible
for doing so. AS a manager - I have approved the purchase of lots of
computer equipment on the recommendation of my staff - even though I
really have no idea how they get millions of circuits and "transistors"
onto a CPU chip.
While JKR may not know 62 different languages - or even all the dialects
of English spoken in the UK - the books remain her words. Normally an
editor or translator is given AUTHORITY to correct spelling,
punctuation, and usage only. When an actual word has to be substituted -
that would be part of a list that would have to be signed off on by the
writer - in this case JKR. At least in my case - where I work in
international movie and TV production and must word with real
translations - I have some knowledge of the process.
A "translator" who is actually going from one language to another has
more power than a an editor in that the translator also gets to choose
the appropriate word for the translation - if more than one is
possible. Remember that these translators are not machines - or computer
programs - but people who work specifically in the publishing industry.
They are trained to ensure that the meaning of the words are what the
writer intended - rather than what the strict translation would be. IN
virtually all cases - they are fluent in both the writers language and
the target language. In otherwords - they are very well trained
professionals and take their job very seriously. Even after the
translations, the books are then EDITED again in the target language by
another person. This is why official translations take so much more
time than non-official ones.
One of the jobs of the translator is to provide explanations to the
writer as to why certain passages may have required special changes -
idioms are especially difficult things - and sometimes it can take a few
passes before the text is completed. It is with this knowledge that a
writer can approve a translation. And they must be involved - because
the text cannot be released without the writers approval.
Thom-Madura
In the US it is not unusual for us old folk to use the Brand name of an
early product as the name for all of them. A Victrola was the name RCA
used for a record player (I hope I don't have to explain what a record
is) - and many people used Victrola for all record players. A similar
thing happened with refrigerators. Frigidaire was the product name of
those originally produced by General Motors - and that word - or a
shortened part of it (Frig - soft g) is used by many as a replacement
for refrigerator.
Thom-Madura
AS you will note - YOU are blaming an American Editor for a change he
did not make. Levine wanted the Book to be name = Harry Potter and the
School of Magic. JKR suggested the change to Sorceror.
Thom-Madura
What is right?
You talk about translation and then actually properly describe the word
of an editor.
The US version of the books were not taken to a translator - they were
edited. I don't think I could find a British to American "Translator" -
I doubt anyone would pay much for that.
Sue H
Actually in Jo's case the motivation was she just had to get the story
out. I have heard many writers say they first write books simply to
get the stories out of their heads. They write for catharsis more
than anything.
Though some do go on for the money.
Sue H
Thanks for reminding us of that. I don't think they go out to change
the authors words to mean something else at all; they do the best to
keep it pure.
Sue H
That Jo ... (cut and paste) KR writes in English, right? She writes
in British English, with BRITISH spellings, and BRITISH idiom, and
BRITISH phrasing,
>
>You talk about translation and then actually properly describe the word
>of an editor.
The translators change to their language and when an idiom, spelling,
phrase etc as you said comes to light, they take it to the editor do
they not? The editor is the one who then gives what they want and
either Jo trusts them with their job or asks for them to submit those
variances to her for approval?
>The US version of the books were not taken to a translator - they were
>edited. I don't think I could find a British to American "Translator" -
>I doubt anyone would pay much for that.
Is someone arguing with you over that? I wasn't. I merely stated she
said they didn't change her work hardly (thought I heard that in a
documentary/show) and was merely stating that because that's hard to
do. In other words, she's a good writer on the technical side, even
though when she started that, she wasn't a "writer" in the
professional sense at the time. I think that's a brilliant
accomplishment!
Green-Eyed Chris
Thom-Madura <thomm...@optonline.net> wrote:
I'm late to this thread. Wasn't the use of hoover/vacuum one of the
Bloomsbury/Scholatic differences?
--
Chris
Thom-Madura
Thom-Madura
I agree - but I was countering the statement that the books were
translated into American - which they were not. The stories were edited
for the American Audience - and in the normal editing sequence - some
word changes were recommended and made - JUST AS HAPPENED WITH THE UK
EDITION AND THEIR EDITOR.
Thom-Madura
> On Aug 20, 11:03 pm, Ron Hunter <rphun...@charter.net> wrote:
>> Thom-Madura wrote:
>>> super juf wrote:
>>>> news:869jc3htlmbchdg0j...@4ax.com...
>>>>> I don't know if this has been discussed per se; I hope it's not
>>>>> repeating.
>>>>> I caught what I think is a minor error. In COS, there is a sentence
>>>>> alluding to "Christmas tea" whereas easier in the books it was called
>>>>> supper or dinner. I don't know why they just don't leave everything
>>>>> as it originally was since it's the same language.
>>>>> I mean we have technically British words here we all get so why change
>>>>> some at all (I remember the debate over put-outer etc).
>>>>> Unless of course I am mistaken and there's a special Christmas tea
>>>>> drink?
>>>>> PS I would have loved to have seen knackered instead of tired ... I
>>>>> don't know why but I like that word for some reason.
>>>> Don't English people use "knackered" when they're tired after they've
>>>> had a lot of sex?
>>>> You'd probably like to use the word "fanny" as well....
>>>> Kim
>>> THere is a basic flaw with the title of this thread. THe US version is
>>> NOT a Translation of the UK version - they are edited simultaneously
>>> from a Master Version from JKR.
>> Are you saying that JKR writes two versions?
>
> different people's editorial idiosyncrasies are what show up now in
> the differences between the British and US editions.
>
>> If not, then it is edited
>> to convert some terms into ones that will be recognized better by the
>> average American.
>
>
> http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/hbp/differences-hbp.html
>
> For a comparison of HBP. A typical difference is
>
> British: ...corridor. Tonks pulled open
> US: ...corridor. She pulled open
>
> There, it looks to me like the British editor thought it'd be clearer
> if Tonks' name was mentioned, but perhaps the US editor thought it was
> being repeated too much. It's not a difference in US and British
> language.
>
> For some reason, timetables in the British version were schedules in
> the US. That does seem like an example of translation, but why
> translate that and not, say, "jumper" (as they did in the first two
> books) I can't understand.
>
> There were also some other cases where an apparent attempt was made to
> avoid a double entendre. "Got off with" changing to "Hooked up with"
> being an example, although I'm not sure how much that helps.
>
> Another clear translation: got toothache --> got a toothache
>
> and one that surprises me: got --> gotten. (I mean, we do say
> "gotten" here, but "got" is fine too.)
>
> But the point is that these all have a different flavor than the
> changes that were made in the first two books, which are the changes
> that articles about this usually mention.
>
>
No - you have pointed out editing changes, not translations.
Got toothache is incorrect English in the US - and was edited to correct
the usage - but there was no TRANSLATION. Same with GOT and GOTTEN -
which is a usage issue - not a translation issue.
Sabremeister Brian
Thom-Madura (thomm...@optonline.net) spake thusly:
I'm not doing anything of the sort!
To sum up:
jankey - I'd have preferred to read the UK edition
IYM - Me too! I don't know why they change things anyway
Megan - There were only a couple of changes. They should have put a
glossary in, or something
Me - For a long time, another YA book was not released in the US
because the author's US editor thought none of the target audience
would be able to relate to the content. American editors are thicker
than the people they are trying to sell to.
--
www.sabremeister.me.uk
www.livejournal.com/users/sabremeister/
Use brian at sabremeister dot me dot uk to reply
Someone pass me that shovel
Ron Hunter
I suppose that depends on where you live. In the US, 80% of children
have internet access at home, and more than 50% have broadband access.
As for the books being for the 8-12 age group, bull! The books were
intended for age 11-17 initially, but their popularity with adults
strongly affected later books. I rather suspect that more adults than
children have read the books. How many 12 year olds are on this group?
Ron Hunter
of the profits from DH. How many millions can one family spend?
Ron Hunter
If it were me, I would tell them to make sure it MEANS the same thing,
and to try to preserve the original whenever possible.
Sometimes the concepts common in one language/culture just don't exist
in another. I understand that Japanese has no 'tense' structure.
Talking about past and future things is somewhat difficult.
Even languages as similar as English and German have differences that
may cause misunderstandings.
Ron Hunter
Why are you so adamant about this issue? Does it matter if the process
is called 'translation', or 'editing'? UK English and US English, and
Australian English ARE the same language, but they have some really
substantial differences. Editing/translating often have the same
actions, and requirements. Why be picky about the term?
Ron Hunter
work 24/7 when preparing a new book for publication. Wouldn't it make
more sense to delegate that job to a team of experienced people with
authority to approve things, based on their knowledge of her past
decisions? I promise you were I in her position, and with her financial
resources, I would do it that way!
If she really does exercise that much control of the translation
process, the changes they make on the movie scripts must really burn her
butt.
Sue H
wrote:
I think the biggest thing here they are trying to decide (not sure;
nobody seems to have a clear agenda or point) is that Dean Thomas was
left out? I guess they are deciding if that was a translation or
editing issue? I didn't know Dean was left out personally. However
someone aptly pointed out that you don't translate British English to
American English. So someone added Dean in, in the US version I
guess? It wouldn't be a translator then, probably an editor or
perhaps Jo told them to do it after-the-fact. I don't think this was
done to snub the British; it was probably and after thought? Best on
these types of things perhaps to go to Jo's website and email the
question. Probably won't get a response, but if enough people ask it,
maybe next interview she'll address it, which is better than sitting
here arguing over something nobody has a clue about!
As for editors verses translators, let's all just stipulate that a
translator only takes the books into other languages and an editor
fixes errors (spelling, grammar, continuity, repeats and other such
stuff). However please note that while translating, some words can
appear which don't translate quite well and can 'appear' as an editing
issue.
Sue H
wrote:
She had to have because the amount of time it took to write it and
turn it in, she'd only have less than a couple weeks (she did state
she wasn't even done except a couple weeks before printing?) to learn
all those languages, have the editors of those languages do their
thing and then return it to her or her editor for review? I am
beginning to wonder if she and her editor even had time for the last
part! Which would mean I am sure there are a few "translation/foreign
editing" issues ....
Cindy Hamilton
> Well, if you were reading the US version of the books, you probably
> didn't get the full education. I will have check with my great-niece
> who brought home the UK version when she left Ireland to see if she has
> compared her copy with the one her Mom read.- Hide quoted text -
Rowling is scarcely my only exposure to British English.
Cindy Hamilton
Ron Hunter
about him was left out of the British version, or was put in the US
version, I don't recall which. Dean is one of Harry's roommates, and is
surely in both versions, as Ginny is seen dating him, and kissing him
(eeeeewww) in HBP.
Sorry, but I am not fond of Dean for some reason.
Ron Hunter
versions that are out now.
Am I mistaken on that?
Sue H
wrote:
Oh, ok, so a kissing scene was left out of one version or another? I
wonder why. That may be relevant to why the discussion then because
isn't that an interracial couple? That would be interesting of why it
was left out.