Proper British Grammar, segue to Harry Potter

[Philski]

* proper British.

[Avistew]

Er, no. If he had said "sounded like", then sure "proper British", but otherwise, "sounded properly British" is correct. You need to use an adverb there, not an adjective.

EDIT: here, I'll give a better explanation. Hey, let's say a proper explanation :P.

When you say "it sounds like British" or "it is British", British is a noun, and refers to the language. To qualify a noun you use an adjective, so you say "proper British".
When you say "it sounds British", however, British is an adjective, and you don't qualify and adjective with another adjective but with an adverb, hence the use of "properly".

[JedExodus]

Originally Posted by avistew

Er, no. If he had said "sounded like", then sure "proper British", but otherwise, "sounded properly British" is correct. You need to use an adverb there, not an adjective.

Ahhhh but you see. this is what a British person would say. "I speak proper British like what the queen does"

[Avistew]

But... You used British as a noun in that sentence, so of course it's "proper"... I fear I might be missing a joke :P
Brits are so "I tell a joke but I sound 100% serious" sometimes, it can be hard to tell. Plus it's the Internet.

Well, I reckon we should toss this conversation in the bin, and, er... bloody something.
(I think I have exhausted all of my British vocabulary, sadly).

[Remolay]

I thought reckon was western

[Avistew]

Well they say it a lot in Harry Potter, so...

[Chyron8472]

Avistew is correct about the properly right way to grammatical of usageness on words.

ha.




---
EDIT: Which Harry Potter?

This (US): or These (UK):
There is a difference.

[Avistew]

I've only read the original ones, although I know the American version is edited to sound less British. Actually, I even have the original book 4 where Harry's parents die in the wrong order and I was all speculating about what that meant when it was just a mistake :S

(I have the children covers, which are the only ones that were sold in France for some reason. However I've been wanting to buy the Canadian pocket version with the adult covers, but then they decided not to publish the last book. Just the first six. Yeah, that makes sense.)

[Chyron8472]

I wouldn't say the British ones are the "originals," so much as one version is published by Bloomsbury, the other by Scholastic.


I also remember wondering that same thing about Book 4.

[Avistew]

Well she wrote the books in British English and, if I remember from her interviews, then sent it to her editor for the American version, who would go over it and change it to sound more American. So so me it's more of a... localised version, I guess?
Which I find silly since it takes place in Britain, it seems more normal that they'd speak British anyways. And it's not like it's going to hurt American readers to learn British words and expressions.
Considering the British version is also the one that was sold in Canada and France (the only other two countries that I've checked) it seems to me that it's the "real" version, and the American one is an adapted version, not quite a translation but not quite the original either.

EDIT: Thinking about it, I think a bit part of it is how the first three books were released in British English only, then "converted" and released in the US months later, as a translation. Then it's true that they were released at the same time once the series was really famous, but I'd guess that it was just the British release being delayed until after the American version was ready.

[Rather Dashing]

Originally Posted by Chyron8472

I wouldn't say the British ones are the "originals," so much as one version is published by Bloomsbury, the other by Scholastic.

Except the American books aren't the Bloomsbury books sold in America, they're the original Harry Potter books, localized for an American audience. While most of it is minor stuff, and it gets more minor as the series goes on, it's still different.

Also, thanks to the US, everybody gets a "Sorcerer's Stone" movie rather than a Philosopher's Stone movie. Yay Warner Bros.? Doesn't seem quite fair. :P

As far as the actual covers go, I like the American covers the most. I don't like the style of the British "normal/child" covers, maybe they're just too bright or something? By contrast, the "adult" covers are just...bland. At least throw some style into it, like Germany did. :P


I propose a solution for the "childish book cover" problem.

[Avistew]

I like the adult covers, actually. I find them simple and to the point. I probably would have chosen them if I had been given a choice. Didn't even know they existed for years.

While it boggles my mind that they thought "people won't know what the Philosopher Stone is", I can't be too hard on them renaming it that way. The French first book is, well... I hate the translation :P I don't blame the translater, only the publisher, who obviously asked him to dumb it down. So, first it's called "Harry Potter Goes to Wizard School", then you have several scenes simply cut off, and you have added explanation about how "in wizard school, there are houses"...-_-'

It just annoys me how people assume children = stupid. So they're going to be given lots of weird wizard words and concepts that don't actually exist, but still the publisher thought "they won't understand the concept of houses, we need to add an explanation on how it's a weird wizard stuff!"

How, and the French covers suck too. I do like the American covers but overall I think the British adult covers are my favourite. It's a shame they don't have a real pocket version. The only one I saw advertised "almost as big as the hardcover!" well, no, that's not what I want, but thanks :P

[Remolay]

I would like to note that the change from Philosophers Stone to Sorcerers stone is stupid. so I agree. But here's the thing. A lot of people everywhere don't know or care what the philosophers stone is. people will look it up if they are interested.

here's the thing. in the USA: Children= stupid.
Children + No Child Left Behind = more stupid
Children + No Child Left Behind + Dumbed down books = more stupid
Children + Explanations they can understand = smarter

Try that people. don't dumb it down, No one did for me. I now read at a better than most high school graduates.

I like the british childish covers. A friend of mine has one of those ones. He also has a poster for the Philosophers stone. He's awesome.

I'm done now

[Katsuro]

Originally Posted by Rather Dashing

I propose a solution for the "childish book cover" problem.

Okay I have to admit this cracked me up for some time.
Actually I want to print them and use them on my desk...

[Avistew]

The thing is, I'm pretty sure I remember a Scrooge story with the Philosopher stone in it (as in, Scrooge Mc Duck). So it's not like it's unheard of in stuff that children might read.
And even if it was the reader's first time hearing about it, there is no reason why it would be any weirder than all the new things in the book.
And... I haven't read the book (I mean the American version) but I can't imagine that every instance of "Philosopher's Stone" was replaced with "Sorcerer's Stone". So changing it only in the title is... very weird.

I guess they thought "people won't buy it because they won't understand the title". But as I said the French title is even worse... >.>

However I have to say, I don't think the changed titled should have been used for the movie. They went into the trouble of getting British actors and everything, and then they put the American title? When everybody already knows it's a changed title? (okay, maybe some people didn't at the time, but still).
I seriously think that they should have gone with the original title for the movie. It would have made much more sense.
(And the French version of the movie should have used another title than the first book's title. Like, the actual translation of the title. Just saying.)

[Darth Marsden]

Originally Posted by Katsuro

Okay I have to admit this cracked me up for some time.
Actually I want to print them and use them on my desk...

I want to print them and use them on my BOOKS. I really do wish some of them were real.

[Rather Dashing]

Originally Posted by avistew

The thing is, I'm pretty sure I remember a Scrooge story with the Philosopher stone in it (as in, Scrooge Mc Duck). So it's not like it's unheard of in stuff that children might read.
And even if it was the reader's first time hearing about it, there is no reason why it would be any weirder than all the new things in the book.

That's one thing I found hilarious: Why is a Sorcerer's Stone any clearer than a Philosopher's Stone? If they hadn't heard about the Philosopher's Stone, I don't see how it would be any more confusing than the Sorcerer's Stone, which is ANOTHER THING that they've never heard about that does the exact same thing. The name would be unknown either way.

And... I haven't read the book (I mean the American version) but I can't imagine that every instance of "Philosopher's Stone" was replaced with "Sorcerer's Stone". So changing it only in the title is... very weird.

There you'd be wrong. They did go through and change every instance of Philosopher's Stone to Sorcerer's Stone, just as they did in the Warner Bros. film.

[Remolay]

Originally Posted by avistew

And... I haven't read the book (I mean the American version) but I can't imagine that every instance of "Philosopher's Stone" was replaced with "Sorcerer's Stone". So changing it only in the title is... very weird.

believe me, it is one of the only books I will read more than once. they did. They searched through the book and replaced every philosopher with sorcerer.

[Avistew]

I didn't realise Sorcerer's Stone was another name for the Philosopher's Stone (honestly, I only know it as "pierre philosophale"). I assumed they called it Sorcerer's Stone because there are sorcerers in the books. So, you know, there is a sorcerer, he has a stone, that's the Sorcerer's Stone. Capitalised because it's a title.
While it might sound ridiculous that they'd change it only to replace it with something that means the same thing, I feel relieved that they didn't dumb it down to the point I thought they did.

I didn't pay much attention to what they were calling it when I saw the movie since at the time I couldn't understand stuff spoken with a British accent anyways so I only depended on the subtitles. (I know "a British accent" is vague. Let's say I didn't understand any of the 10,000+ existing ones).

I remember the first time I saw Love Actually, I didn't even notice that two of the characters were speaking back and forth in different languages. Since you know, both were subtitled and I couldn't understand what the people were saying anyways. Now I wonder how I could not have noticed, since Portuguese and English are pretty different

[nikasaur]

I love you guys.


...and I'm totally splitting this off into a different topic.