Jonathan (Maljonic) wanted to take a copy of Colour/Color of Magic with him to the film before we went, and he happened to grab the copy I brought with me from America. The first difference he noticed was that the US version is divided up into chapters, but the UK version isn't. I didn't realise that the UK version didn't have chapters - I just thought that Terry used chapters for his first Discworld book and then decided to go without chapters for the subsequent books. We then got to talking about the differences in language in the US vs. the UK versions, and the fact that they bothered to make a different "translation", e.g. American books say "color" while British books say "colour". I then brought up "The Phantom Tollbooth". This is my all-time favourite children's books. A while back, Grace (Buzzfloyd) gave me a copy of it as a present, because it was also her favourite children's book. I was reading the book she gave me - from Britain - and I noticed that it used all British terms, e.g. the main character lives in "a flat", takes "the lift", etc. I couldn't find my original, US, copy of the book, but I could have sworn that the author was American, and I didn't remember any "non-American" language being used when I read it as a child. Then, later on in the "British" Phantom Tollbooth,there was a part in the book thatwas obviously originally supposed to involve a pun between the words "sense" and "cents", only they changed "cents" to "pence" so the joke was completely lost, which shows that they really did do a separate British translation. So, getting back to what Jonathan and I were discussing, we can't understand why publishers bother to do separate translations for British vs. American readers, rather than just expect the readers to have enough intelligence to figure out what the words mean - or else look them up. Jonathan suggested that it's not so hard to create such a "translation": you can just have a computer to do a search for words that are different in Britain and America, but I don't think that's enough because there are whole expressions that are unique to either country; I think you would have to have a human copyeditor reading through the whole text. I don't know what they do about books published in other English-speaking countries. I think it's silly. edit: silly mistakes due to not previewing before posting
It is silly. Another thing I was chatting to a publisher about the other day : what would be the more acceptable: an American text for a British reader or a British text for an American reader ? If the publisher was to decide on doing only one version of the English translation, which would be the better choice ?
It's obviously something that isn't done by all publishers. Lindsey Davis, the British author of the 'Falco' series of ancient Roman detective novels, once received a letter from an American reader asking about the Arval Brotherhood (a religious order) wearing ears of corn on their head - and asking if it would be corrected (!) for the American edition. There was clearly confusion between the American usage of the word (maize) and the British (wheat). Lindsey responded with a rather harsh but very funny rant: rant. She followed it up with more general comments on British-English 'translation': Lindsey Davis: Rants
The only reason that I can imagine is that it is to keep those crazy copyeditors who believe this is nessary inside and away from the general public. Which is just my silly opinion. But the question remains why do Americans feel the need to make such a trivial change, hold onto a outmoded measurement system... etc. Is it simply a need to separate themselves from Briton/Europe in general, perhaps part of a national identity crisis (like Australia is having now) that happened in the past and has now become a tradition?
It's not just Americans, it works both ways. I think it's just a total waste of time to change color into colour, or colour into color or whatever. I don't want to read about Holden Caulfield visiting a New York flat any more than I was to read about Philip Pirrip's expectations as he rents his first London apartment. Besides it being a total waste of time, I think it's more interesting anyway to learn the different words and see the different spellings, it adds to the ambiance, or something.
Maybe in children's books, or any literature that might fall into the hands of younger readers, the thought behind it is that they are meant to learn the spelling that is asked of them in school, the standard spelling of the country they live in. I would agree to Mal, in principle, but that may be the motivation behind changing colour to color etc.
In our conversation, I mentioned to Mal that in school in America we were taught some British terms for things when they differed from the American term. For example, the teacher would tell us that, in Britain a truck was called a "lorry", an elevator was a "lift", etc. And at some point, we were taught the spelling differences: the extra "u"s, the "s"s in place of "z"s, etc. On the other hand, Mal said that when he went to school in England, he wasn't taught American words and spellings.
I remember having been taught a handful... Like, elevator and lift, but it is quite hard to remember which word is being used where, if, in your daily life, you use neither...
I just finished the final Harry Potter book and I seemed to notice more sayings in there that I didn't get. I also own the movie Harry Potter and the Philosophers Stone, it came from Canada from eBay. Wikipedia tells me the book is also called the Philosopher's Stone and only released in the US as Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.
We are? Why does no one tell me these things!? I'll have to start feeling all sorts of angst in my search to define my Australian identity... I think the crux of the argument comes down to why can't UK english and American english speakers just understand each other and not have to have their own special version of books? Us poor colonials which get either version depending on the publisher have to know this stuff, why can't the people who came up with the differences know it too? And yes while in Australia we generally go in for the UK English spelling we use terms like 'truck' and not 'lorry' and while we expect to see 'u' in 'colour' we also accept 'generalize' and 'generalise' as long as its consistently applied. So we sit somewhere between the two englishes. No wonder we're having an identity crisis...
And I thought it was the same language... Hello As a non english person, I really think these small changes are just details. Don't you have any synonym (or whatever you may call two different words having the same meanig)? The publishers are so wrong to treat peolple as small children. I can read both english and american writers without being lost and so do you! So why bother? "La plume est plus forte que l'épée"
Maybe as a second language it's not as obvious, imagine reading a book written in colloquial quebecois, it's technically French, but you would have one hell of a time working out what "pinotes" are and so on... (as a random example) And the other way round, Quebecois have problems dealing with French French, even though they usually know bits of vocabulary are different, it still would be weird to them to hear a guy talking about his "gosses" and how he enjoys playing with them (in French, it means kids, in Quebecois, it means testicles. I would love to find out how that came about)
Re: Philosopher's/Sorcerer's Stone, apparently that was because the American editor believed the title would cause confusion due to 'philosopher' having a different meaning in British and American English (I'd love to know what those different meanings are). Other changes were also made for similar reasons. 'Sorcerer's Stone' was chosen by JKR as the American version from various possibilities. It would seem the decision to Americanise the book was heavily criticised, and so the practice was not adopted for the rest of the series. I understand American spellings etc have now been ruled as the standard to be used in science lessons in British schools.
french and quebecois These problemes of differences in a same language are true even for different parts of a same country (for example in France, people from Lyon would talk about "gones" (children), and people from Brest say Kenavo (hello)). But we read the same books and are not lost when some regional words are used. That's what dictionnaries are for and proves that's this language is alive...
It is because the "philosopher's stone" is part of world history, and I guess it is assumed that Americans don't have any knowledge of world history.
"z" and "s" are different sounds. Generalize and generalise look like they should sound different to me with the second one being more "hiss-y". As for sticking to the English system for most things we were independent and isolated enough with enough manufacturing to make a switch non necessary. I've noticed on BBC that both systems are used, actually. And taking away "u"s... maybe we should have taken away the o's instead. Armor is pronounced "arm-er", color "cull-er".
I know this is an old thread now, but I'm reading it for the first time and finding it interesting. I have often wondered why publishers feel the need to change basic words that the average person knows are used differently across the Atlantic. Mal may not have been taught American terms in school, but I was, so I suppose that's something that varies from case to case. I think it would be more helpful to include a glossary for potentially confusing terms. And then, instead of colour/color, flat/apartment and so on, they could explain all culture-specific terms and you could just look up any that you have trouble with. Like Twinkies and Smores (should there be an apostrophe in there?), duplexes and condos, and so on. I think, in fact, that most people can guess vocabulary items from their context. I think the real difficulties are conceptual ones. For example, I had a book when I was about seven that had a character with an English accent. This took a lengthy conversation with my Dad to understand, after which I still wasn't really convinced that I had any kind of accent and found it easiest to think that the American characters just thought the English character had an accent...
Which is, of course, true. There is no such thing as an English Accent, it's all the other weird people what have accents. And some minor British populations that live in strange places like Scotland, Wales, and Birmingham. But I'm not really convinced that they exist either.
It's an abbreviation of "some more". As in, "May I please have some more?" I thought it was obvious, but I just realised that I pronounce it as two separate syllables - "suh-more". Perhaps other Americans pronounce it differently, as one syllable, to rhyme with "snore".
I do think it's particularly silly translating such books when so many TV shows and films cross the Atlantic both ways. No one bothers to translate Friends into British English or Ab Fab (*shudder*) into American English.
Heh. I don't know, Ab Fab in American English might actually be very entertaining because it would be so bad. Ah. That makes sense. :smile: I'd only ever seen it written down. That's probably why it confused me.
I was thinking about this. I can see why you would get that feeling with words you're used to seeing another way - but you're happy with words like 'reason', 'surprise' and, indeed, 'words', I'm sure. (And what about 'sure' with its 'sh' sound?) So it's a question of what you're used to rather than what makes sense.
As orthography is so often... Strangely, all purposes to make language more logical by decree make it worse.
I think it's things like that that lead to the general ignorance that seems to be spreading these days. Sure, I know that pavement and footpath are the same thing. And Color and Colour. Aluminum an Aluminium. Same diff. And I know that because...drumroll...I have the uncanny ability to put two and two together. I didn't read the words "Stan walked on the pavement" and think durrr, what are a pavement? I thought (quite quickly of course) what would Stan be walking on, in the middle of a busy city. The road? No. That's silly, 'cos he'd get run over. Hmmm, maybe they mean footpath! Eureka! File that little bit of trivia away and move on. I think that that kind of dumbing down is painful to see. And is stupid. I mean, how much are they paying someone to go through books and make these little changes that really don't affect the book at all, and in fact, messing about with peoples work could and does introduce errors. Now, I know it's not a translation thing, but does anyone remember them messing up the word Famine in the Corgi edition of Good Omens? It was right in every other edition, but some bright spark decided that Famine had seven letters, not six. (I could be wrong, and it could have just been a typesetting accident, but working in a publishing company, I know that in the end, someone has to go "yes, that's right. Proceed." "Sable signed for it, his real name -- one word, seven letters. Sounds like examine." Ok, tired, on strong pain meds and stopping there before I launch into a rant about work.
Yeah, we had that version in our school library, and it was the first time I'd read the book. I was so confused. ("Well, it should be Famine, but it says seven letters, so it must be something else - but what else is there?" etc)
I am glad that someone has confirmed what I believed from my first copy of Good Omens - which had the reference to Famine signing with seven letters - this then had the Marthter referring to it in Maskerade when he mentioned one of the engravers spelling famine with seven letters - the later versions of Good Omens appear to have been "Proof-read" (i.e. mucked about by people who didn't understand what they were reading) and they killed the joke.
My apologies, I did mean sidewalk, but as I mentioned later on in the post, I was doped up to the gills and really tired. God bless codine. :lol:
[-]Good Omens: Copyright 1990. Witches Abroad: Copyright 1991. Yes, one is a reference to the other, Pixel, but in the other direction. There is no time travel involved. The proofreaders have not managed to circumvent space and time. They are not Timelords. They are not robots come to kill John Connor. They do not muck about with "jigawatts" of power to get their Deloreans started. The newer book referenced the older, as is standard practice in a universe in which time typically flows in one direction only.[/-] EDIT: Never mind, Ba sees what Pixel is saying. They ruined the joke in Witches Abroad. However, this is a small price to pay for clarity in Good Omens..
I hate to deny the omnipotence of Ba (may He be always Lord of the Pies and an overall Boardanian God) but on this occasion he is mistaken. The reference to the engraving of "famine" with seven letters was in Maskerade (published 1995) not Witches Abroad.
Ba was not wrong. He was going off of Pixel's post. Which Pixel obviously edited. Without it showing as being edited. Clearly, some manner of trickery is at work. Trickery and lies! *Smites Pixel*
Interesting point - with the new software, can one edit a post without it showing? I'm going to try it now Now with an edit but not filling in the reason box So it is possible to edit without leaving a trace - but I definitely did not edit that post - sorry, Ba - *holds up an amulet of smite deflection*
*Has ninjas steal Pixel's amulet and then proceeds to smite the sass out of him* Ba is never wrong. Pixel probably just edited the memory of the event using some manner of cyberpunk technology.
