British -> American "Translation"

[Jim Flanagan]

No: HPFGUIDX 10152

Here are some additional differences in grammar, punctuation, 
and spelling between the British and American editions. Several 
of these are so trivial that they may just reflect the 
proofreaders' preferences.  Here's what I've found so far:

        Difference                   British         American

Period after abbreviations           no period        period
   such as Mr and Mrs

Quotation marks (first level)       single quote    double quote

Use of commas                       more commas     fewer commas

Capitalization after ellipsis       capitalised    not capitalized
   in quotations

Spelling: -ise vs. -ize                   -ise           -ize
Spelling: -our vs. -or (e.g., colour)     -our           -or
Spelling: defence vs. defense             defence       defense
Spelling: the day before                 Hallowe'en    Halloween
   All Saints Day  

Past participle of "to get"             [had] got    [had] gotten
   (Note:  Webster's 9th Collegiate 
   Dictionary [American] lists both 
   got and gotten without preference.)

Collective nouns, singular vs. plural     plural       singular
   (Another member has noted that the 
   plural usage is associated with
   British sports broadcasts, and that 
   collectives may be used as singular 
   in other venues.)

OT Digression #1:
One thing that is noticeable on certain BBC programs that are
rebroadcast over here is the omission of the article adjective
in phrases such as "at table" and "to hospital." Americans would
say "at the table" and "to the hospital." The BBC usage sounds
posh and pedantic to my ears, so I'd like to ask any Brits or
Aussies who've read down this far: are "at table" etc. in
everyday use?  Does this usage vary by dialect area?  
I haven't seen any examples in the HP books, so if anyone sees 
one please let me know and I'll add it to the list, which may 
become part of the International Editions FAQ.

OT Digression #2:
One of the stranger things that I have done all my life is  
comparing the translations of John 3:16 in different languages 
when I'm in a hotel room that has a Gideon Bible.  I remember
that there were several pairs that were remarkably similar,
but which were given as separate languages (e.g., 
Danish/Norwegian and Dutch/Afrikaans, as I remember). But 
there was only *one* English language. I guess that being part 
of this group has turned me into an Anglophile, because for 
some reason, I really like the fact that British and American 
(and Canadian, and Australian, and New Zealand...) English 
are considered to be the same language.  <Waves Union Jack>  
[Did I mention that this was a digression?]

Just my 2d (0.8333 new pence)
Jim Flanagan


--- In HPforGrownups at egroups.com, John Walton <john at w...> wrote:
> Jim Flanagan wrote:
> 
> > There is only one *tiny* justification for the translation from
> > British into American that I have seen: some fine points 
> > of grammar
> > are different enough that American teachers would "count off" if
> > their students used the British forms in class.  Here's an example
> > from PS/SS:
> > 
> > British:  "Slytherin are on the offensive"
> > American: "the Slytherins are on the offensive"
> > 
> > Maybe Scholastic has done a service by "correcting" the original
> > version for American kids. Would any teachers (or students) care 
> > to comment?
> 
> Interesting differences there...as a student of Linguistics, I can
> happily say that this is one of the "problem areas" in modern
> grammar, not just in the US, but in the UK too.