| 1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users) |
|
British-isms vs American-isms Part IX |
|
|
|
 Jun 12 2008, 12:57 PM
|
Dominating the world, one poking stick at a time
Posts: 4,112
Joined: 3:53pm January 4, 2008
Location: Treating Patients at St. Mungo's Who Have Been Zapped With The Wrath Of Litene
|
Please continue to enjoy the discussions of this very popular thread about British-isms vs American-isms Part IX. Feel free to read and quote discussions found in Part VIII here.
Happy posting 
Lirene
LL Moderator
--------------------
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 12 2008, 01:28 PM
|
Perusing the Magical Menagerie
Posts: 94
Joined: 11:35am April 6, 2008
Location: In Hogwarts kitchen, trying to kidnap a house elf!
|
QUOTE(lisegreen @ Jun 12 2008, 04:10 AM)  I've actually got a question for you HP maniacs, are there differences between the american and english editions of the books? Just i read a question in the HP trivia tread: What is the word tha Dudley had learnt just before the arrival of baby Harry at hte Dursleys? And the answer given was "Won't". Is that true for the american version or is it a mistake ..in my book it says "Shan't". Just a little trivia here, I'm a very precise kind of person, and believe it or not it bothers me (i'm a virgo, apparently we're all that pedantic!!) 
The US edition does say "won't" but that means the same as shan't. I wondered the same thing earlier and looked the differences up on lexicon because I'm a Virgo also and those differences bugged me to no end.  I would link but don't know how, sorry.
QUOTE(MistyH @ Jun 12 2008, 09:16 AM) lisegreen, if I am not mistaken (it's been a while since I read it and I don't have my copy with me) I think my version of PS/SS uses the word "won't." "Shan't" is a word that would very, very rarely be heard in America. For whatever reason, "won't" is the common term. Hmmm, I'm a cancer and I'm pretty picky about precision too. (nice little alliteration there, lol!) I don't really see the difference as being a problem though. A thread was started over in Pensieve Parlor that was a bit, er, we'll call it sarcastically unflattering, implying that because PS was changed to SS in the U.S. that Americans must be quite ignorant. Rather disappointing to me to read it, but I suppose there are those that feel that way. (I despise stereotypes) I figure the publishers just wanted to make the vocabulary more familiar, especially as the first book was aimed at such a young audience. I always enjoyed learning new phrases and the like - The Secret Garden was one of my favorite books when I was a little girl and I remember grabbing the World Book Encyclopedia to see what a "moor" was (since it was a new term to me) and exactly where Yorkshire was. 
I participated in that thread also and I don't think it meant to imply that (but maybe  ) but I made the same point their that the changes were just for familiarity mainly for those (unlike us) who will pick up almost anything to read. With the later books it was unnecessary to make many changes with the wording because Jo already had an audience. I liked reading the different wording except in cases when there was a clear difference in meaning that we would not get. Shan't and Won't don't count. 
--------------------
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 12 2008, 01:41 PM
|
Official Giggle Loop Coordinator
Posts: 7,222
Joined: 2:55pm January 28, 2005
Location: Classified until such time as the ministry sees fit to release it.
|
Well, the word "shall" is used here in the States, it's just not very common. "Shan't" is even more uncommon. I'm sure the change in the US version of the books was based on the assumption not many young kids would have been familiar with it. A reasonable assumption followed by an unnecessary change, in my opinion. 
I think the title change for SS/PS and the small text changes in the books are minor and, to me, not a big deal. I know it drives others nuts.  But we are looking at editing changes with hindsight. I imagine at the time the US editors were simply obsessed with getting a book by a relatively obscure author to market in a way that the average 9 year old in the US could easily read and then tell friends about. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 12 2008, 01:54 PM
|
Dominating the world, one poking stick at a time
Posts: 4,112
Joined: 3:53pm January 4, 2008
Location: Treating Patients at St. Mungo's Who Have Been Zapped With The Wrath Of Litene
|
--------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 12 2008, 02:18 PM
|
Harry's Best Friend
Posts: 1,804
Joined: 1:22pm December 28, 2007
Location: Hovering over Steve Kloves shoulder, trying to make sure DH Ron is the 'real' Ron.
|
QUOTE(lirene @ Jun 12 2008, 12:54 PM)
Funny, no one consulted me either, lirene. I agree though - imo, if it's ok with Jo, why should I get upset? (although, as I admitted in that other thread, I do wonder about some of the license she's allowed the film makers to take)
I don't think it was a necessary change, but as Pleione said, they wanted it to be as marketable as possible to the young target audience.
Thanks dkhermy. I really hope I just took the tone of that thread wrong. It's very difficult to make tongue-in-cheek recognizable on line. I guess I'm overly cautious about my posts because of that. I would never want to come across as being hateful or disrespectful. So...maybe I did misunderstand. ***hopes so***
--------------------
*beautiful avatar by {{{voldy}}}*
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 12 2008, 06:29 PM
|
Perusing the Magical Menagerie
Posts: 94
Joined: 11:35am April 6, 2008
Location: In Hogwarts kitchen, trying to kidnap a house elf!
|
QUOTE(MistyH @ Jun 12 2008, 03:18 PM) QUOTE(lirene @ Jun 12 2008, 12:54 PM) QUOTE(Pleione @ Jun 12 2008, 01:41 PM) I think the title change for SS/PS and the small text changes in the books are minor and, to me, not a big deal. I know it drives others nuts. But we are looking at editing changes with hindsight. I imagine at the time the US editors were simply obsessed with getting a book by a relatively obscure author to market in a way that the average 9 year old in the US could easily read and then tell friends about.
I very much agree with you, Pleione and I will venture to say that I have actually witnessed grown adults scream and argue with each other over the title change, and how it has affected not only the pleasure of the books for them; but for their children as well.
To me, neither the title change, nor the small changes in wording take anything away from the pleasure and magic of Rowling's books. Was the title change necessary? In my opinion it wasn't but then again I wasn't consulted on the matter
Funny, no one consulted me either, lirene. I agree though - imo, if it's ok with Jo, why should I get upset? (although, as I admitted in that other thread, I do wonder about some of the license she's allowed the film makers to take) I don't think it was a necessary change, but as Pleione said, they wanted it to be as marketable as possible to the young target audience. Thanks dkhermy. I really hope I just took the tone of that thread wrong. It's very difficult to make tongue-in-cheek recognizable on line. I guess I'm overly cautious about my posts because of that. I would never want to come across as being hateful or disrespectful. So...maybe I did misunderstand. ***hopes so***
HAHAHAHA   I totally agree and I think every one should think about how they write.
QUOTE(shadow_onthesun @ Jun 12 2008, 03:42 PM) anyway- back to britishisms- what is unleaded gas selling for in the states today? £1.18 i paid per litre today ($2.30ish)
Thanks for getting us back to topic. Gas where I live is $4.12/gallon. It's ridiculous. I drove on Empty all day. Dangerous but you me, the risk taker. 
--------------------
|
|
|
|
  Similar Topics
 Similar Topics
|
Sorting is now open for our Prisoner of Azkaban reading groups! Click here to sort!
Shopping at The Cauldron Shop supports this forum!
|
. Was the title change necessary? In my opinion it wasn't but then again I wasn't consulted on the matter 
