Not that anyone cares, but in the Welsh translation, they translated the book title literally, stone - of the - philosophers (maen yr athronydd), instead of using the perfectly good Welsh word for “philosopher’s stone” (eurfaen, literally goldstone). I assume for the same reason as the change in the American edition: how many Welsh speakers are familiar with the terms of medieval alchemy?
er…you know that Websters is an American-language dictionary? You’d have been better off with OED or Phillips.
I don’t see why such changes have to be made. If a kid doesn’t know what a word means then they either bumble along not knowing and eventually work out a context or they go and look it up. At least, that’s how it worked when I was a kid. And I frequently read works from foreign countries or some of the classics when I was a young whippersnapper.
Well yes, I figured a book with New World in the title was American. The thing is, I’m American. An American dictionary suits my everyday needs.
I never said that the changes had to be made. I’m defending the opinion that it makes sense to use American terminology for an American audience. The word choices used here are different enough from the words used in the United Kingdom, that I think it was a wise choice for the translations to be made. Would I have been able to understand the stories without them? Yes. Would I wonder why Percy was cross-dressing? Potentially. It isn’t just new words that I’m unfamiliar with, it’s words that have an established meaning here that is quite different elsewhere that I’m glad they changed. I find reading to be a more enjoyable experience when I don’t have to get online to research phrases several times in one book. Again, it isn’t something that I think absolutely needed to be done, but I think most of the editing changes were a good choice for the audience they were selling the book to.
Now see, I would take the opposing stance. I see nothing wrong with reading texts from another culture and learning how the language is used there. At the very least a child will learn that words have different meanings in different contexts and cultures. Yes that child will most likely (if it is American) have access to an American dictionary but if the word is not defined in a satisfying way or a way which makes proper sense then the child can be encouraged to find another dictionary. And in this day of internet access for the majority it won’t be difficult to find multiple definitions online. I don’t think that a story should be all about education but if a story encourages a child to educate itself then that’s all to the good.
If the story is in a different language from the audience then yes, I’d agree that a translation is required. But I don’t consider English and American English to be so different that a translation is required.
I do, but that is one of the great things about this message board: all of the different opinions. I’m bored with saying and reading the same thing over and over again. Lets agree to disagree.
I’m another one that disagrees. The correct way to handle this is with footnotes or a glossary at the end of the book (trainers = sneakers, etc.)
I remember reading Robin Hood’s story as told by Howard Pyle when I was a child, and there were many footnotes in there for children (e.g. fourscore = 80).
This is the best of both worlds: you get to learn new words and understand the story at the same time.
Exactly. One could as reasonably ask that Moby Dick be updated to give the Pequod diesel engines, because all those obscure sailing terms are just so darn confusing.