American Vs English, Why are words perceived differently |
 May 26 2006, 06:41 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Just Through the Brick Wall Posts: 13 Joined: 6:29am January 28, 2005  |
I am teaching a course in the history of English, so I guess I am alert to differences in words. Today I clicked on the Harry Potter Quotes Conjurer widget and received this quotation: "It's not much," said Ron. "It's _wonderful_ said Harry happily, thinking of Privet Drive.
That seemed very odd! What I am familiar with is 'It's not much,' said Ron. 'It's _brilliant_, said Harry happily, thinking of Privet Drive. Why would "brilliant" be impossible for a muggle American child to understand? What is odd about "brilliant" as a word? Remember, I am asking as someone teaching the history of the English language. Diana Patterson Calgary, Alberta, Canada |
 |
  
 
|
|
May 26 2006, 07:53 PM
Post
#2
|
|
Perusing the Magical Menagerie Posts: 81 Joined: 10:14pm April 26, 2006 Location: San Jose, California |
It's not that American children wouldn't be able to understand, it's just not something the average American kid says on a regular basis.
-------------------- "And now, Harry, let us step out into the night and pursue that flighty temptress, adventure."
- Dumbledore. |
|
|
|
|
May 26 2006, 07:53 PM
Post
#3
|
|
Hiding in the Iron Maiden at Borgin and Burkes Posts: 346 Joined: 12:02pm May 18, 2006 Location: Not Loafing in the Municipality    |
I'm not so sure that the term brilliant being "difficult" to understand for an American kid was the reason for the change. I would argue that the change of words was for marketability in the States. The publishers likely assumed that kids would be put off by the British-isms (which I don't think they are) and the books would not sell as well. (I'm thrilled that the Canadian versions kept all the British terms). With the success of the books in the States, the publishers could be assuming that they guessed right and have no interest in changing back to the British terms (also that would create an inconsistency between PS/SS and the rest).
Just take changing the title of PS to SS for the mere sake of marketing as an example. The Lexicon has a great section that list all the differences between the two versions. It's not just word choice that is altered, but sentence structure as well. It's a very interesting list. -------------------- Why are all the other numbers afraid of 7? Because 7 8 9! (So lame it's funny)  Member of R.O.Y.A.L.T.Y |
|
|
|
|
May 27 2006, 11:10 AM
Post
#4
|
|
|
Just Through the Brick Wall Posts: 13 Joined: 6:29am January 28, 2005 |
I realise that American children do not say "brilliant." I also realise all the marketability stuff about word choice. I have just written a paper for the Edinburgh Bibliographical Society on the publishing reasons for changing the names, etc. etc. But what I want to know is, what would an American determine from a child saying "brilliant"?
By the way, I notice that "brilliant" to "wonderful" is not in the HP Lexicon word change. I also notice no mention of any change in the word "span" for the past of "spin." Did the American edition not change that word? I would be surprised. Even the Brits find that an archaic or dialect form. Diana |
|
|
|
|
May 27 2006, 11:22 AM
Post
#5
|
|
|
Perusing the Magical Menagerie Posts: 90 Joined: 2:57pm April 24, 2006 Location: UK, Norfolk Hunting Nogtails |
The word brilliant is used quite abit the UK I should know I live there. We don't really say Wonderful alot (well I don't) because to me it seems abit over the top.
I'd rather say "Wicked" myself or "Well Smart". What about you. -------------------- Anyone wanting to talk about Harry Potter or wants to make new friends check my Profile.
"Couldn't make us a cup o' tea, could yeh? It's not been an easy journey..." Look! |
|
|
|
|
May 27 2006, 03:39 PM
Post
#6
|
|
|
Hiding in the Iron Maiden at Borgin and Burkes Posts: 346 Joined: 12:02pm May 18, 2006 Location: Not Loafing in the Municipality |
QUOTE(Diana Patterson @ May 27 2006, 12:10 PM) [snapback]833987[/snapback] But what I want to know is, what would an American determine from a child saying "brilliant"? Being Canadian and not American this is speculation, but since we don't generally use "brilliant" in the sense of wonderful either, I'm willing to guess. An American kid would likely come to the conclusion that "brilliant" means wonderful through the same method of using a complete sentence to figure out the meaning of a word you don't know. I don't think after reading: QUOTE 'It's not much,' said Ron. 'It's _brilliant_, said Harry happily, thinking of Privet Drive. an American would be confused into thinking that the Burrow is a "smart" house, the definition most Americans (and Canadians) associate with brilliant. I honestly believe that American readers would have been more than capable of figuring out the British terms based on the surrounding context and if they really couldn't, they would have looked the word up in a dictionary if their understanding of the word did not match the context of the sentence/story. (edited for typo) This post has been edited by henrietta_r_hippo: May 27 2006, 09:53 PM -------------------- Why are all the other numbers afraid of 7? Because 7 8 9! (So lame it's funny) Member of R.O.Y.A.L.T.Y |
|
|
|
|
May 27 2006, 05:11 PM
Post
#7
|
|
Chief Cat Herder  Posts: 3,514 Joined: 10:28am August 6, 2005 Location: In the Corner Booth - home of the elusive Holy Grain!  |
QUOTE(henrietta_r_hippo @ May 27 2006, 04:39 PM) [snapback]834129[/snapback] Being Canadian and not American this is speculation, but since we don't generally use "brilliant" in the sense of wonderful either, I'm willing to guess. Being an American, I agree that the kids would have been able to figure out the meaning of the word, based upon the context of the sentence. It disappoints me that the American publishers felt the need to change the things they did. The only word that I truly think would have confused American kids would have been the word jumper for pullover sweater. Jumpers are a type of dress here, so having the Weasleys and Harry receive one each from Molly would have been mystifying. Other than that, I think that it would have been better to keep the language from the culture in which the books are set.An American kid would likely come to the conclusion that "brilliant" means wonderful through the same method of using a complete sentence to figure out the meaning of a word you don't know. I don't think after reading: QUOTE 'It's not much,' said Ron. 'It's _brilliant_, said Harry happily, thinking of Privet Drive. an American would be confused into thinking that the Burrow is a "smart" house, the definition most Americans (and Canadians) associate with brilliant. I honestly believe that American readers would have been more than capable of figuring out the British terms based on the surrounding context and if they really couldn't, they would have looked the word up in a dictionary if their understanding of the word did not match the contexy of the sentence/story. --------------------  To listen and share great filks, check out Swishandfilk.com New stuff: Nina's Piece of Me, MJ's Return to Forever & my Now We'll See |
|
|
|
|
May 27 2006, 06:26 PM
Post
#8
|
|
|
Dodgy Cauldrons Dealer Posts: 1,643 Joined: 8:39am July 6, 2005 Location: Manchester |
I agree that words that cause confusion should be changed to fit, but I also think they 'translate' more words than Jo Rowling seems to believe when she defends the translations in interviews. 'Brilliant' to 'wonderful' would be one such example. It doesn't matter if American kids don't say 'brilliant' very often. The characters aren't American kids and young American readers are very unlikely to melt or run screaming at the relevation that people in other countries sometimes say words they don't. Besides, they know what it means. Nobody's going to assume from the context that Harry was saying Ron's house was a dazzling place of grandeur. It even describes the house in the narration!
I think this was just a case of Americanising the book. I don't think there was anything odd about the word. I suspect its crime was being a bit too British, while not being 'quaint' enough like bloody or bogies. Or else they just went gung ho while editing the earlier books because they wanted to be more involved or thought these British books had a weaker hold on the American public than they actually did? But... how many boys say 'wonderful'? It makes Harry sound more like Hermione! Couldn't they have at least gone with 'amazing'? |
|
|
|
|
May 27 2006, 06:57 PM
Post
#9
|
|
Cauldron Bottom Measurer Posts: 141 Joined: 11:39pm May 25, 2006 Location: In the lab ;) |
I'm American and I happen to enjoy using British-isms because I think that they're more interesting than some American sayings. I think that they should've left the original text and if they had been that worried about it they could've put a dictionary in the back.
 I agree with Aislinn that the only thing that would have been confusing was "jumpers" ... but I even though some of these words were changed in the books, for some reason I remember that word being used and me being terribly confused until I made the connection not long afterwards. 
This post has been edited by PotionsMiss07: May 28 2006, 04:00 PM -------------------- "You are here to learn the subtle science and exact art of potion-making. I don't expect you will really understand the beauty of the softly simmering cauldron with its shimmering fumes, the delicate power of liquids that creep through human veins, bewitching the mind, ensnaring the senses."
|
|
|
|
|
May 27 2006, 07:21 PM
Post
#10
|
|
|
Dodgy Cauldrons Dealer Posts: 1,643 Joined: 8:39am July 6, 2005 Location: Manchester |
Are jumpers in the US (or everwhere outside the UK?) what we call pinafores here? A sort of overdress? Worn by little girls?
If so, I have an idea for why they're called jumpers over there. I know a song which mentions 'dungaree jumpers', which presumably means what we now just call dungarees or overalls. Maybe dungaree jumpers lost the jumper, but somehow the jumper part became associated with the similarly styled dress. That's assuming that dungarees existed before pinafores and that woolly jumpers existed before either, though, which seems unlikely when I think about it. Anyway, I can see why people would be confused about Harry receiving one of those. This post has been edited by Spinks: May 27 2006, 07:22 PM |
|
|
|
