I’m writing a paper and I was wondering something that’s never been discussed in class before.
I’m using a quote from Churchill and some words he uses are spelled one way in the UK and another in the US (realising --> realizing). Do I change it to the American version as if it were like a Castro quote spoken in Spanish, or do I let it remain the same since it’s (technically) the same language?
So long as it’s understandable, I’d say to leave it be. Then again, if it’s a spoken quote (rather than a written one), there is no exact spelling, and you should be allowed to change the spelling. I wouldn’t risk it though.
Um, I disagree. I’d change it to conform to the American spelling.
I mean, classic novels published on either side of the Atlantic usually reflect that country’s spelling, so why not quotes? It doesn’t alter the content of the quote at all, and keeps the style more consistent.
Your best bet would be to ask your teacher how they want it, since they’re the ones giving you the grade. Whatever you do, don’t [sic] it, since it’s not an error.
I’d say it stays the same - but, of course, ask your teacher about this.
pulykamell, I don’t think that change is always made from English to American publications of the same book - I think it’s up to the publisher. Also, modifying the content of an entire book by one author is different than modifying a single quote by someone who’s not the author of the paper in which it is appearing, I think. Just a WAG.
True. But generally I find publishers stick with the spellings of whatever the target market is. Anyhow, if I were quoting a book, I would retain the original spelling used in that book. If I were quoting a speech, then I see no need to use British spelling. An American reporter would have spelled it with “-izes” instead of “-ises.” If you’re other material from a British book along with this quote, then I suppose I’d stick with the British spelling. If I’m simply quoting Churchill, I’d stick with American spelling.
Wikkit, the use of [sic] is not limited to mistakes in the original, but to any situation in which the original does not conform to current usage. It doesn’t mean “note the mistake,” it means “yes, I copied it right.”
Most of the Harry Potter books seem to “translate” equivalent words-- lorry -> truck, petrol -> gasoline-- but leave British spellings intact (grey, realising). I think.
As for the Castro example, I would quote him in Spanish, and then provide a translation afterwards. That way, if my translation is imperfect, those fluent in Spanish could still referr to the original. This isn’t likely to be a problem with English to American, though.
I think it would depend on what source you are citing the quote from. In the case of the Castro quote you would presumably be citing a book/paper which has translated it.
Since AETBOND417 say’s “I’m using a quote from Churchill”, doesn’t that imply he/she is quoting a source? Spoken or not, the OP didn’t (of course) hear the words in person, so should leave the quote intact, imo. Funny spelling and all.
Besides, I think the British spelling adds flavor. Especially for a wonderful speaker like Churchill.
But yes, please your teacher first.
Peace,
mangeorge
If it was an oral statement (a speech, etc.), you can change the spelling. If it was a written statement (published book, etc.) then keep the original spelling.