h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

It has recently come to my attentino that publishers, at least of children's books, sometimse translate British English (I will just say British from now on) to American English (I will just say American from now on) for the American editions of the books.

One example of this is the Harry Potter books. Scholastic has translated many parts of them to American and even changed the title of the first book from "Philosopher's Stone" to "Sorcerer's Stone"
Evidence of this can be found at--

http://helenajole.freeservers.com/home/Harry.html

--for those who don't have copies of the US and UK editions to compare.



Now, for the question:

What do you think about this? Should books be translated between American and British for readers on the opposite side of the Atlantic? Are the two dialects so different that they are mutually incomprehensable? Should they only be translated one way? Can Bristish readers handle American English, but American readers can't understand British English, or vice versa? Is this something that is allowable only in kids' books, but not adults' books, or vice versa?

Any opinions?

Now that I've posted my question, here's my opinion.

Publishers should never translate American to British or British to American.

Frankly, any American who doesn't kno what a lorry, or a lift is should learn.

And anyone from the UK who doesn't know what a truck is, or an elevator is, should learn.

Anyone ought to be able to figure out the difference between the American and British meanings of biscuit and torch.

People should be able to ignore the fact that words are spelled differently. It shouldn't be that hard to figure out that grey and gray, or color and colour are the same word.

I think I've made my point that the two dialects aren't mutually incomprehensable. Now, for why books shouldn't be translated.

1.) Because one shouldn't tamper with an author's work if not absolutely needed. Translations are never perfect, but at least one normaly knows that they are reading a translation. Hidden translations between dialects are unneeded and change an author's work without cause. I enjoyed reading the books of Rolad Dahl, Dick King-Smith, ect. in the British English origional and I would be angry if my local library replaced them with American English translations.

2.) People need to learn both British and American to keep the language contiguous. If you allow dialects to be treated as different languages, they eventually will be. Those of us who speek English as a native languge are lucky to speek one of the most spoken languages on Earth and to have the opertunity to speek with people from many parts of the globe in a language native to both us and them. If people treat different dialects as different languages, one day people in the UK, the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and other nations will really need translators t understand each other. Do we want to let this happen?

More points may be made later.

Hehe, the "Sorcerer's Stone" thing really amuses me. It's not even a translation (since philosopher is of course a word in America too), and it completely eliminates all meaning in the title. The philosopher's stone is a mythical substance that changes base metals into gold. The sorcerer's stone is just a stone that happens to be owned by a sorcerer .

Actually, not having read the book I couldn't tell you if that has anything to do with the story or not, but it surely must?

I can see a point in translating childrens books. As a child I was an avid reader and had a number of British books as well as American ones. To this day I still 'misspell' grey and occasionally flip-flop on other words. It was frustrating as a child to be marked off for misspellings which I *knew* were correct.

Also, it wasn't til I was an adult that I realized a torch was actually a flashlight and not a flame. There was a series off books about three boys who solved mysteries and I always wondered why they were lighting up torches every time they went out at night instead of just using a flashlight.

Those discrepencies hardly marred me for life, but it did cause a bit of confusion. I assume the purpose in making translations is to alleviate that.

It does. In the book there is an object that matches the traditional philosopher's stone. In the American edition, they change it to sorcerer's stone. THe publisher said they did it because they thought American kids wouldn't like the word philopher for some reason.

Ah, we are two nations divided by a common language...

I haven't read that book either, so the only comment I can make, based in cynicism, is that that's what we get in most of our profit-driven programming: a dilution of value and meaning in exchange for an appeal to fantasy and glamour.

I'd find it hard to come to a straightforward decision on this one...

My first thought would be - ask the author.

If the author considers that the message they are trying to get across would be better understood in a 'translated' version and their writing style (for example their comedy) does not rely on wordplays or references that would not cross the atlantic in either direction I'd say for children's books that they should be translated (as has been mentioned it's a bit confusing for a kid to read something in a book only to be told that what they've read is incorrect the next day in school).

Having said that, I can't see any point whatsoever in translating books for adults (reading Terry Pratchett has actually improved my latin because of the number of latin in-jokes he throws around - I've not felt that they should be translated for me).

I think that the best option would be to insert footnotes with translations or explanations rather than to alter the original text. If I remember correctly, that's how Pratchett does it, and it's tremendously useful.

Footnote is a good idea. THe reason I don't think that children's books should be translated, even if the author says it won't ruin the humer or point being made is that its important to expose children to both dialects at an early age (say 7 to 10) in my opinion (see mmy point in #2).

I'm not convinced your point 2 is a valid one I'm afraid. Given the relative power of the written word against Television and Films I seriously doubt that the languages could ever separate... unless of course the UK were to ban the showing of American TV programmes etc.

In fact I see the British language at risk of being swamped by American - simply due to the inegalities in the quantities of material produced by the two countries. (But that's for another arguement )

Pratchett doesn't use footnotes to explain his language nuances. He uses them as a deployment vehicle for those jokes which are too silly even for the body.

I see no problem with translating children's books. Too many children are already put off by reading and spelling. There's no sense in confusing them further.

***

As for the other side of the argument... it seems that the argument is over American publishers making changes to British work. But the opposite takes place here on this site. Do you approve of changing the language of US/Canada researchers into British English for the Edited Guide?

"Do you approve of changing the language of US/Canada researchers into British English for the Edited Guide?"

Not really. I think they should allow American, Canadian, and Australian users to use their own form of English, as long as they note if they are using the American system for the writnig of large numbers and numerical dates if they come up in the article.

In short, yes. I also agree with most of the other comments that've been made. This is an Obviously British website. Following the Principle of Least Surprise, material on this website should be in British English. For the same reason, I would support translation to American English if this was an American site.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

It would be better if the edited guide stuck to the S.I. system for numbers etc. As to dates, it is better if we stick to one system as if I say my birthday is on 1/10, it can be quite confusing as to whether I'm talking about the 1st October or 10th January...

1st October:

Alternate Solution: all birthdays must occur on the 13th of the month, or later.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

That is a good point. One question, although it is addressed to someone else.

What is the SI system for writing numbers out as words?

Should 1,000,000,000 be
a) One Billion (American System)
OR
b) One Thousand Million (British System)
in SI? Are there rules for it?

OK. I accept your point about it being a British website, so edited guide materials should be translated to British English. However, if you are writing dates in a conversation or entry that won't be edited, you should clarify which system you're using if it's ambiguous like 1/10 or 10/1, since not everyone here is British and those who aren't won't necesarily write it in the British format. Therefor, you should try to clarify it in cases where the editors won't be able to change it.

So, then, the consensus is that there are certain times when, to avoid confusion, things should be edited. It's simply tailoring the work to the audience... on this, an obviously British website, people expect to see date formats in a certain order, and extraneous vowels that are unable to justify or explain their presence in words.

By the same token, an American audience purchasing a book from an American publisher has certain expectations, and if, by tailoring the product just a bit for that audience, the editors can get more value, and the writer can get greater appreciation for their work, so be it.

I'll give you one example from DNA's work: Ford Prefect. His name is part of a very funny joke in the opening of HHGG. And I never would have gotten it had I not read an interview with him in which he explained it. He wanted to pick a car that was internationally known, so everyone could share in the joke, and that's why he picked a Ford. However, Ford does not market a Prefect model in North America, and he didn't know that at the time.

Another example: Cockney rhyming slang. The rest of English slang of all varieties can be understood when used in context, because the real words have some tenuous relationship with how they're being used. But nobody can understand rhyming slang without an interpreter.

Well, I dunno, there is still context for rhyming slang. Were those Guy Richie London movies changed for an American audience? I'd imagine that what gets changed are the small variations like the abovementioned 'flashlight/torch' thing, and spelling, things which are relatively unimportant, and so can be changed to smooth the reading process, but to translate a cockney character 'speaking' cockney would be odd. Dialect is dialect. That's why the writer bothered with it in the first place.

I think the reason why the edited guide changes stuff to Brit. English is for the same reason they are not keen on the first person: technically the entry can be added to/changed/ rewritten by anothers, and there needs to be some consistancy of style/ format so that you don't lurch madly from one style to another in one text.