Language desk
< July 29	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 31 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 30[edit]

Books in the orginal (British) English[edit]

I'm curious about American editions of British books (and vice versa). For some reason, it seems to be common for international editions of books to be published under different titles. For instance, Sophie Kinsella's Secret Dreamworld of a Shopaholic came to the United States under the name Confessions of a Shopaholic. Perhaps the most notorious example of retitling is Harry Potter and the [ugh, gag] Sorcerer's Stone. A number of minor changes were made in the U.S. editions of the Harry Potter novels in order to make them more accessible to American audiences, replacing "holiday" and "lavatory" with "vacation" and "toilet," etc. Here is my question: is this sort of Americanization standard procedure for any British book published in the United States? Are American books published in Britain subjected to Anglicization? How can I tell, when I purchase a book, whether I'm getting the original or the modified text? (Of course, I could just make a habit of ordering my American authors from Amazon.com and my British authors from Amazon.co.uk, but since it's more expensive that way, I'd just as soon buy the American edition if the text is unmodified. However, I do mean *completely* unmodified.) Also, why do they sometimes change the titles of books when the original title would make just as much sense to the overseas audience as to domestic readers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.78.58.9 (talk) 00:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the publisher. We are not France, with its Linguistic Secret Police. The US doesn't even have an official language. You answered your own question. Buy from amazon.uk if you are are offput by dodgy Yankee shenanigans. μηδείς (talk) 00:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Title changes are very common. Changes to the text are rare. If nothing else, they are too expensive for most books. Looie496 (talk) 02:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Harry Potter books were translated into American English for the American market. Apparently J. K. Rowling insisted on it. I find it a little insulting, myself, and it's not the only thing about her that rubs me slightly the wrong way. (On the credit side of the balance sheet, I loved her making the Ministry of Magic the bad guys.) --Trovatore (talk) 02:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Apparently J. K. Rowling insisted on it"?^{[citation needed]}

This is bog-standard practice among American publishers, especially with as-yet-untried authors. American publishers are firmly convinced that a statistically-significant proportion of their ethnocentric U.S. readers can't understand ordinary Briticisms, far less Scotticisms, Cymricisms, etc., since these are not American and therefore are clearly "wrong"! (See the edit history of Orange (colour).) Given that I overheard a flack for Mitt Romney this morning stoutly defending Romney as a proud advocate of American exceptionalism, I fear they may be right.--Orange Mike | Talk 15:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, changing the actual content of a book is relatively rare; having not read the Harry Potter books, I can only speculate it was done because they are children's books (well, children's books that inexplicably became read and celebrated by adults and apparently slowly morphing in tone over their run to suit older audiences, but still basically children's books) and as such perhaps Rowling's motive was to avoid confusion in the young. Bizarre in any event, and not common publishing practice, so you are probably safe with the majority of your literature. As to changes in title for localization, that's not as rare, but still not common by any means (except in the case of translations, where liberties are often taken). In either scenario, I'd posit it's often a matter of marketing or other forms of acclimation to the new target audience. Consider Men Who Hate Women, which became The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo in its English localization. Now this is very much speculative, but I always suspected that one was a case of publishers (wisely, I think) guessing that the original title would be a little too "in your face" and explicit in its social commentary for English-speaking audiences, Americans in particular -- I'm quite certain I know many Americans who would find the title loaded, even to the point of being off-putting. But "The Girl with the Dragoon Tattoo"; holy crap, does the tattoo give her fire powers? Does it animate from her suppressed rage from her rape and eat violent criminals? Others might feel I'm being hyperbolic and highly presumptive in assessing the reason for this particular change -- and I admit, it's just a guess -- but I think we can all agree that's a title for a book/movie that Americans can get behind. Title changes also sometimes occur as a result of a work being split into multiple parts (or multiple works being compended into one) in localization; this is more common in speculative fiction (science fiction, for example) than in most literature, however. But again, if you're just looking to make sure the narrative itself remains unchanged, you don't have to do much in most cases, and a basic search engine query for "The Jungle unnecessary changes" (for example) will probably ferret these out, assuming your not willing to pay the extra expense order directly from a UK (or US) source. Just beware of spoilers. Or raised hopes; the dragon doesn't actually eat people. Snow (talk) 03:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Trovatore that "translating" the English into American is insulting. Could you imagine dubbed Monty Python? Or an "urban" version of Lord of the Rings? There may be Americans who haven't learned to understand the British idiom. It took me a few years from, say, 10 to 12 to master the denser Monty Python, given its frequent use of strong regional accents. But while I have met Americans who have said they can't understand certain British accents, I have never met an American who has said british dialog would sound better dubbed in American. As for Rowling, if she indeed demanded a translation it must have been an issue of sales, and a stupid one. Americans who read are not idiots who faint at an unusual usage on every fifth page. For God's sake, Stephen King is a literary hack, but even he uses words the average Joe needs to look up, every once in a while. As for the title change to Dragon Tatoo, it has nothing to do with being "in your face"--it's boring--and everything to do with being more "sexy" in the hollywood sense, even literally more sexy. μηδείς (talk) 03:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree; Americans (at least, certainly Americans who are bibliophiles) don't necessarily want these changes, at least not at the outset, but -- with regard to the titles in any even -- if the marketing mindset is there, that angle will be pushed nonetheless. And at some point it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy, where such expectations become dominant and titles that don't conform to the eye-catching principles become perceived as pretentious. With the The Girl with the Dragoon Tattoo, the title was changed for the localization of the book even well before the English film adaptation (meanwhile, even the original Swedish film, also titledMen Who Hate Women was translated to The Girl with the Dragoon Tattoo in localization as well). But it strikes me as so much offensive due to the fact that American's don't necessarily want it but as simply ridiculous because you now have British characters talking like Americans. The goofy assumption being that Americans (or any target audience) are willing to sacrifice accuracy and immersion in exchange for the comfort of the familiar, which really makes no sense given one presumes that a person reading a narrative taking place in a culture other than their own probably wants that immersion and new perspective. All of that being said, if someone is reading Harry Potter and expecting realism in any measure, I'd say they should get used to having their intelligence questioned. In fact, if you started reading Harry Potter at any age over 14, I'm laughing at you right now, and I imagine Rowling is too, all the way to the bank. Snow (talk) 04:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read the Potter books, but I take exception to laughing at anyone reading any book. So it's not perfect; let them enjoy it anyway. At least they're reading and using their imaginations. Matt Deres (talk) 20:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciated this point, but do have further commentary upon the idea; please see my response here (if interested), as i decided it was too long and off-topic for this location.Snow (talk) 03:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for all the insights. I've done a little more research on my own, and I'm rather dismayed to find what a common practice it is to Americanize the English in British novels published in the U.S. Funny, I've never had any trouble with British English; expressions that I don't know I can usually figure out from context, and if not, there's always the Internet. In some cases, the modifications extend beyond spelling and punctuation, or even changing a phrase here and there. I guess Amazon UK has a new loyal customer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.78.58.9 (talk) 05:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weighing in a little late, but as a former professional bookseller (in the 70s/80s) and an avid collector of books, I can confirm from personal experience that such 'Americanisations' of BrE texts have long been a common though not invariable practice. It's usually done at the behest of the American publishers (whether they're reprinting a previous UK publication, simultaneously publishing, or even publishing the first edition), presumably because they think (probably correctly) that non-AmE vocabulary and spelling will put off at least some potential US buyers – judging by the frequency of complaints on Wikipedia about "wrong" spelling in UK-oriented articles, I'm sure they're right.

Usually the author has no particular say or involvement in this process, although I do possess a copy of a UK-published paperback by John Creasey, heavily edited in his own hand for typing up as a MS for a US edition. In more modern times J.K. Rowling is exceptional in her control over matters like this (and cover art) because of her unusually high sales and therefore personal clout: most non-bestselling authors (i.e. most) have little or no control over such matters.

The converse practice of Anglicising AmE texts is much rarer (I can't offhand recall one, and being an SF/F fan I read a lot of US-written works). This may be because UK readers are, through films and other works, more familiar with US culture and spelling, and would actually feel nonplussed by an American character in the US referring to, for example, a bonnet and boot rather than a hood and trunk.

I rather like the French practice of denoting BrE texts translated into French as "Traduit par L'Anglaise" (I think), but AME texts as "Traduit par L'Americain." {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 12:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In French (BrE): Traduit de l'anglais britannique or more specific Traduit de l'anglais (Angleterre) — AnE: Traduit de l'anglais américain, Traduit de l'anglais (États-Unis). — AldoSyrt (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtless more correct, but I have specifically observed Traduit de l'anglais and Traduit de l'américain (I slightly misremembered during my earlier posting from work) in several paperback volumes I own. {The poster previously known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.109 (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where book and film titles are concerned, I presume that publishers and distributors pick titles that they feel will be more understandable (and thus more attractive) for the markets in which the works are released. Heathers (1988) was released in Singapore as Lethal Attraction, and Beaches (1988) as Forever Friends. I assume that the book Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (1997) was released as Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in the US and a few other countries because it was thought that the concept of a "philosopher's stone" was too arcane for readers in those countries (and perhaps confusing because philosophy is not associated with alchemy these days). — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the urban myth that the title of Alan Bennett's play The Madness of George III was changed to The Madness of King George when it was made into a film so that Americans wouldn't think it was a sequel. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My favourite translations are where all instances of colour or labour are changed but will leave in bonnet or draughts. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 06:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing it's an issue of striking a balance between making changes (like the spellings of colour and labour) to avoid text that immediately looks awkward to an American reader, and changing it to such a large extent that it sounds somewhat inauthentic. After all, the stories are set in the UK, so why would the characters be referring to the "hoods" of cars? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a story that when Rupert Murdoch first acquired the NY Post, quotes such as "They found the bloke in the back of the lorry, mate" were attributed to Brooklyn cops... Anyway, "color" vs. "colour" is a matter of automatic spelling conversion, while changing words would be a substantive alteration... AnonMoos (talk) 16:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a few strange comments here about the Harry Potter books and JK Rowling, from people who haven't read them. To clear it up: the earliest books (where she had less clout) are heavily adapted for a US market, with many words and phrases changed as well as spellings and grammar. When confronted about her opinion of this in interviews, she very sensibly said that this was fine with her and she approved. However, the later books (over which she had much more editing power) are much less Americanised in the American editions, to the extent that the series in the American editions is oddly inconsistent in places ("lemon drops" become "sherbet lemons" half way through, with characters remembering past scenes with the British phrase). This seems to indicate, by her actions, that the Americanising was very much against Rowling's wishes. It's quite interesting to look at the differences, because one sort of change in the American editions, and in later books, is to add extra physical description of characters who were non-white. I do wish that Rowling's additional clout hadn't prevented Deathly Hallows from being as thoroughly edited as it needed... 86.161.208.94 (talk) 09:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some "translation" is useful -- the vast majority of people in the U.S. would really not understand what a "packet of crisps" is (to mention a phrase which occurs in the first Harry Potter book)... AnonMoos (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A bag of chips for them, then? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are surely joking! If that is literally true then I've sadly underestimated just how insular and uninformed the stereotypical "Ignorant Yank" really is. Roger (talk) 14:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Not joking in the slightest -- the word "crisps" is basically unknown in American English, and "packet" is not used in the meaning of food packaging... AnonMoos (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, an American looking at the crisps section in a British market would be wondering why they're all potato-based, and where the corn-based varieties were... AnonMoos (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except that British children manage perfectly well reading American books that use unfamiliar words and terms. At that level of reading, you don't expect to understand every word exactly. When we read Charlotte's Web, we didn't know what 'sneakers' were, but could tell from context that they were probably shoes. It didn't really matter. Equally, a packet of crisps doesn't feature as anything more plot-significant than "something someone is eating", which is clear from context. 86.161.208.94 (talk) 07:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I loved reading Enid Blyton books as a child. To this day I have yet to see cornflowers that things were as blue as, or to participate in a midnight feast. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 22:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone offer a translation or better, transcription, of the song Tajabone by Ismaël Lô?[edit]

Can anyone locate the lyrics to the haunting song Tajabone http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lTHiObYX1o by Ismaël Lô? It is presumably in the Wolof language, or at least he is Senegalese. I heard it first in Almodovar's All About My Mother. I am posting this here given a lack of response on the Entertainment Desk. μηδείς (talk) 00:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the original untranslated lyrics I presume? If so, this should serve, I think? Snow (talk) 02:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just what I wanted. Unfortunately the offered English lyrics are not very exact, given repeated phrases in the original are not matched by repeated phrases in the translation. Can someone offer a better English translation? BTW, I did see an offered Spanish subtitled video--I'm curious if that one makes more sense than the English one. μηδείς (talk) 03:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boy and girl in Hawaiian?[edit]

What are the words for "boy" and "girl" in the Hawaiian language when you're talking about teenagers? http://www.trussel2.com/haw/ only gives "keiki kane", or male child, and a word that means son. The English-Hawaiian section doesn't even have a word for "adolescent" or "teen(ager)". Jeremy Jigglypuff Jones (talk) 08:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They don't necessarily have a word for teenagers. Even in our own culture, "teenager" is a relatively recent word. A century ago, we pretty much went from being children to adults, without an extended period of adolescence, and the language reflected that. StuRat (talk) 10:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is "wahine ʻōpio", meaning "young woman". I'm not sure if "kāne ʻōpio" works for "young man", though. StuRat (talk) 10:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll use "wahine ʻōpio" and "kāne ʻōpio" -- the latter is indeed attested in the WOLD list for Hawaiian. Jeremy Jigglypuff Jones (talk) 03:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Can I mark this Q resolved ? StuRat (talk) 06:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved? Yes. Jeremy Jigglypuff Jones (talk) 02:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved