[HPFGU-OTChatter] POA book differences

[Laura Ingalls Huntley]

Eloise:
> <SNIP>
> I'd never looked at it before and I was intrigued by some of the
> differences. UK page refs are in brackets. Comments? Explanations?
> 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.

Hmm . . . I'd guess that the literal equivalent of "newsreader" in the 
US is "newscaster," but the word "reporter" is also often used for 
them, whether or not they have actually researched and written the 
story themselves.  I'm not sure if this usage is technically accurate 
though.

> 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'.

This is the first I've ever heard of a "bollard" -- not sure what 
they're called in the US though, or even if it's something different at 
all. (Not a city girl, sorry.)

> 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.

I'd say "scampering" has the same connotations here as in the UK, 
although it can contain an element of mischievousness IMO.  "Scurried" 
or "scuttled" might have been better choices.

>  60 (49), 'racing' for 'haring'.
> Don't you have hares?

Heh, of course.  I have no idea why this was changed -- "haring" as in 
"haring after somebody" or "haring off" is definitely part of the US 
English vocabulary.

> 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.

Agreed.

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

Unfamiliar, yes, but very easy to understand given the context (at 
least IMO).

> 105 (81)  'crooked' for 'wonky':

Wonky in the US sense means crazy, offbeat, funny, eccentric, weird, 
etc.  *runs off to Merriam-Webster Online to check what it means in 
England*

Huh, well, apparently "wonky" isn't even a *word* in America -- the 
only definitions given are both qualified as "British".

1.  British: Unsteady, Shaky.
2.  British: Awry, Wrong.

Hrm . . . well, I'd say that if JKR actually meant for Ron to be 
talking *specifically* about a crooked/awry/shaky cross,  the word 
"wonky" would have misled the American readership a bit.  Not that I 
think it should have been changed, mind you.

> 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?

At least by the rules *I* was taught, "Gryffindor haven't" is 
definitely Bad Grammar.  However, I'm only 19, so I can't really speak 
for the older generation.  Perhaps they were taught something 
different? *looks about for assistance*

> 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?

"Spanking good", "spanking new", "spanking clean" . . . these are all 
expressions that are used fairly commonly in the US (well, the last two 
might be a *little* out of date).  Cracking is not really used over 
here as an adverb, but it's really easy to figure out in context.

> 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.

I honestly have no idea why that was changed.

> 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'.

I assume this is a common phrase in Britain, as it just looks like an 
unnecessary overuse of prepositions to me.

> 230 (170)  'party hats' for 'cracker hats'.
> Why on earth was this subsituted? I know you don't have Christmas 
> crackers
> in the US, but the whole subject had already been introduced at the 
> start of
> the  scene with Dumbledore saying 'Crackers!' and offering one 
> (helpfully, if
> awkwardly, explained in the US edition as a noisemaker) to Snape. 
> Surely the
> reader could be expected to carry that information for the length of 
> one  page?

Well, it might have something to do with the fact that a "cracker" *is* 
a "cracker" in the US -- in the party favor sense, that is.  On the 
other hand, "cracker hat" sounds like nonsense out of context. (Again, 
however, figuring out what it means is as easy as, "What?  A hat made 
out of crackers?  *Oh* . . . they meant the hats that *came* from the 
crackers.")

> 254 (188) 'only' removed from, 'Only we need...'
> Don't get this.

*shrugs* Beats me.

> 284 (209) 'neither' for 'nor':
> Had no idea that that little word was particularly British in this  
> context.

It's not, but it does sound a little overly formal.  "My dad didn't 
*strut* . . . and nor do I!"

It kind of gives it the air of a dramatic declaration, which I don't 
think JKR was particularly going for, but of course it's silly to 
change it.

> 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'?

"Clapping" is definitely in common American usage.  I have *no* idea 
why this was changed.

> 307 (226) 'Fred Weasley chucked' for 'Fred Weasley had chucked'.
> Why change the tense of the action?

*has nothing to offer but another shrug*

Laura