POA book differences

[annemehr]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, eloiseherisson at a... wrote:
> A question was asked over on main  which referenced the POA 
differences 
> section of the Lexicon.
> _http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/differences-pa.html_ 
> (http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/differences-pa.html) 
> I'd never looked at it before and I was intrigued by some of the  
> differences. UK page refs are in brackets. Comments? Explanations?

First, a comment.  Pretty much the whole year I was eleven, I lived in
England, went to an English Grammar school, and read *lots* of British
books, and I understood *all* of them.  Even Nigel Molesworth (and
*many* thanks to whoever reminded me of him with a link to a
Molesworth spoof of HP recently).  And my younger brother was partial
to a comic book called "Beezer."

> 16 (18) 'reporter' for 'newsreader': 
> These are two different things in the UK. A reporter researches and
writes  a 
> news report. They *may* present it. A news reader is primarily
(though not  
> exclusively) a presenter.

"Newsreader" is beginning to be used here.  Not that it matters,
because any child who could read the books at all would have gotten
the picture immediately.  Sheesh!
 
> 41 (35) 'wastebaskets' for 'bollards':
> These are two completely different things, a  bollard being a kind of  
> substantial post, usually of metal. The substitution also upsets JKR's  
> alliteration: 'bushes and bollards, telephone boxes and trees'.

"Bollards" would be a completely unfamiliar word to most of us.  My
Webster's agrees that it's a substantial post, but only refers to it
being on a dock, for making hawsers fast to.

> 60 (49) 'scampered' for 'scarpered'.
> Although very similar, these words have quite different nuances.  
> 'Scampering' implies a kind of levity of both movement and intent,
it has an  innocence 
> about it, it's the sort of thing children and young animals do, 
whereas 
> 'scarpering', frequently in the combination 'scarpering off' tends
to be  used when 
> one is getting away from trouble, often deserved.

We don't *say* "scarpered," but again, anyone would probably have
gotten the idea.
 
> 60 (49), 'racing' for 'haring'.
> Don't you have hares?

We do, and we say "haring," too.  <grumble>

> 80 (63) 'gorilla-ish arms' for 'Gorilla arms'
> Just included that because it irritates me that the US publishers
seemed to  
> think that their readers couldn't cope with metaphor.

<Annemehr rolls eyes>

> 93 (73)  'assigned us' for 'set us':
> Is 'set' unfamiliar in this sense in US English??

Once again, not used that way here, but easily understood.

> 105 (81)  'crooked' for 'wonky':
> So what *do* you call a three legged donkey in the US?*

"Glue?"  *I* say wonky, because it was one of the words I picked up
from you permanently (my Mom, on the other hand, is always "bunging"
things somewhere).  Everybody always knew what I meant.

> 143 (108)  'Gryffindor hasn't' for 'Gryffindor haven't':
> In the UK, it is common (and acceptable) usage to follow a
collective noun  
> by a verb in its plural form. JKR is here (and later with Slytherin)
using the  
> name of the house as a collective noun representative of its many
members. Is 
>  the US change pedantic, or does it reflect normal usage?

We are taught to use the singular.  Maybe the editors didn't want a
horde of angry English(!) teachers after them...

> 144 (109)  'spanking good' for 'cracking':
> This one just amused me as it seems to be the substitution of one
rather  old 
> fashioned British descriptor for another. Or is 'spanking good' US 
usage?

No spanking here, even on children these days.  And they say
"cracking" on Wallace and Gromit, don't they???  "Cracking toast, Gromit!"

> 160 (120) 'a moment later' for 'next moment':
> Is this really only British idiom? JKR does rather over use it, but
it  seems 
> to be changed frequently.

No idea on this one.  Maybe the editors had a quota?

> 191 (142)  'know it' for 'know it off':
> I think actually that the 'off' goes with the 'by heart' that
follows it;  
> the substitution is therefore of 'by heart' for 'off by heart'.

We do say "off by heart," all the time.  Maybe this is another one for
the English teachers?

> 230 (170)  'party hats' for 'cracker hats'.
<snip>
> 254 (188) 'only' removed from, 'Only we need...'
> Don't get this.
> 284 (209) 'neither' for 'nor':
> Had no idea that that little word was particularly British in this 
context.
> 304 (244) 'applauding' for 'clapping':
> Again, I didn't realise that clapping was a British usage. So how
does the  
> psalm translation go, then? 'And the trees of the field shall break
into  
> applause'?
> 307 (226) 'Fred Weasley chucked' for 'Fred Weasley had chucked'.
> Why change the tense of the action?

No idea for any of these.

If I were editing these, I wouldn't change anything, not even
"jumper," spelling, or usage.  I agree with whoever said they ought to
just bung in a glossary (that was one for my Mum there).  Oh, and
'quotation mark' usage would remain unchanged, too.  The British feel
of it would certainly have been a big part of the enjoyment.

I was amused reading OoP, when McGonagall offered Harry a biscuit. 
The Scholastic edition used the word 'biscuit' twice, but they just
*had* to clarify by sticking in the word "cookie" besides.  :P

I was going to wait until after book 7 was released and get my
Raincoast editions all at once, but now, I don't know...

Annemehr