Why?

[mandragora]

Got into a discussion on a mailing list today re English language differences, particularly re 'gotten'. I maintained that it's not used in Britain but a couple of Brits chimed in to say that they use it.

All I can say is that according to the OED, the past participle of 'get' in British English is 'got', whereas in US English it's 'gotten'. And if it's good enough for the OED, it's good enough for me ::g::

Oh, and Websters refers to gotten as being 'obsolete' in Britain.

In my defence I cited the Harry Potter books, pointing out that you won't find a single 'gotten' in them, as they're written by a British writer and set in Britain. And indeed you won't, unless of course you're reading the Americanised version.

Snerk.

In 'Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone' (and why the US publishers felt the need to change the perfectly serviceable 'Philosopher's Stone' is beyond me) sure enough there are 'gottens' galore.

I found an online extract and spent some anally retentive minutes looking for differences between the original and bowdlerised, um, Americanised, version. Besides the transmutation of 'got' into 'gotten', I noted the following:
bobble hats: bonnets (which conjures up a rather hilarious image in my head)
roundabout: carousel
cooker: stove
motorbike: motorcycle
Sellotape: Scotch tape
Mummy: Mommy (spit! Really can't see any need whatsoever for this change)
cine camera: video camera ('cos there's such a huge difference between them...)
video recorder became (of course) VCR
hamburger bars: hamburger restaurants (Why? Can't believe even the most insular American child couldn't have worked that one out)
cinema: 'the movies'
holiday: vacation
fringe: bangs

Now all of these alterations were in just a couple of pages. the sheer amount of effort that must have gone into changing the whole book is mind boggling. Why? What was the point?

Comments

[alsoa.livejournal.com]

We-ell. This probably reflects my generally sloppy attitude to all things fic at the moment but --while I'd rather kids (or not kids come to that) read something in the original version, I'd also rather they had access to it at all than not. Purists can go to Amazone and find a UK imprint while everyone else will have passed an enjoyable afternoon with a good story. I deplored the change from Philosopher to Sorcerer's stone since that was a particular mythological reference and did take away from the book. Otherwise let them eat cookies.

[mandragora1.livejournal.com]

while I'd rather kids (or not kids come to that) read something in the original version, I'd also rather they had access to it at all than not.

Of course it's better for them to read some version of the book than none at all, but I maintain that US children could have enjoyed the book perfectly well without the changes. It strikes me as patronising in the extreme on the part of the publishers to assume otherwise.

It also takes away some of the 'flavour' of the novels, I think, to 'translate' them unnecessarily. I remember reading the 'Little House on the Prairie' books when I was a child. The unexpirgated, un-Britishcised ::g:: version. There was a lot of stuff in there that was foreign to me - I remember puzzling about what 'bangs' were, for example, when Laura cut hers, and what was a 'spelling bee' was etc, but somehow I managed to work it out nonetheless. If the books had been 'Anglified' (or whatever you want to call it) I would have been angry, because I wouldn't have been reading the authentic novels, but a pale imitation.

The 'Little House' books are about a particular culture, as are the Harry Potter books. Watering that down does a disservice to the reader IMO. Interestingly, I gather that the subsequent HP novels did not suffer anywhere near as many changes in the US versions. I think that there were protests regarding the changes from a lot of readers and I know many American readers who go out of their way to seek the original versions. They weren't happy about the changes at all.