Language desk
< July 6	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 8 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 7[edit]

Translations of book titles[edit]

I’m wondering whether titles such as Italo Calvino’s Se una notte d'inverno un viaggiatore are rendered differently into English for different markets. I’m referring to “traveler”, which in Britain, Australia and New Zealand is spelled “traveller”. Is there one print run for the US/Canadian market, spelled with one l, and a separate one for the Aus/UK/NZ market with 2 l’s? If not, what determines how the title is correctly referred to? Is it the way it’s spelled by the first English translator? Or the best-known translation? Or can it vary, so long as everyone knows what you’re talking about? -- JackofOz (talk) 04:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Type If on a winter's night a into amazon.com and then amazon.co.uk and you will see that both spellings are used for different editions. You can look at each edition to see where the publisher is based. Strad (talk) 05:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the Canadian standard would be "traveller", but Canadians are often forced to buy American editions of translated books. Marco polo (talk) 13:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google counts show "traveler" about 2.8 times as common as "traveller" on web sites in the .ca domain, for what that's worth. --Anonymous, 06:25 UTC, July 8, 2008.

People, please consider: the decision is most likely the pub₤i$h€rs', handed down to the translator by the publisher's editor! -- Deborahjay (talk) 14:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the same principle would apply to books written directly in English, such as The Road Less Travel(l)ed. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly true that publishers choose the title of books differently according to different national markets, whether they are translations or not. One well-known example is Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, which became Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in the US. A substantial fraction of Agatha Christie's novels were retitled for their US editions: for example, 4.50 from Paddington became What Mrs. McGillicuddy Saw! (and later Murder, She Said). These changes amount to complete new titles, but simple spelling changes do also occur. Isaac Asimov mentioned in one of his memoirs that one of his early books had "Math" in the title, and when he saw the UK cover he said it was misspelled: the word had been changed, correctly for British usage, to "Maths".

Sometimes changes like these are made only in the title; other times they are made thoughout the text as well. A few months ago I read a book whose title was The Four-Color Theorem, but where the spelling was "colour" throughout the body: it was, of course, a US edition of a British book. On the other hand, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone does not contain the expression "Philosopher's Stone".

I can think of one book that is a translation whose title was different in the US and UK editions, but it's more of a retitling than a language-usage change. Peter Høeg's novel Frøken Smillas fornemmelse for sne became Miss Smilla's Feeling for Snow in the UK, but Smilla's Sense of Snow in the US. --Anonymous, 06:37 UTC, July 8, 2008.

That's great information, so thank you. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where's Waldo books are known as Where's Wally in the UK. I actually asked the publisher about this, and they said the name "Wally" wasn't considered zany enough in the U.S., so they needed something even less common. I'm sure an American comes out with a book called Where's Randy, it will be retitled in the UK version. The Book of Negroes by Lawrence Hill was retitled in the U.S. because it was thought the word "Negroes" is too offensive for Americans. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are some more in List of works with different titles in the UK and US jnestorius^(talk) 22:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re my surname[edit]

I would like to know how to write my surname in aramaic(Jesus christ aramaic) and/or latin. My surname is OSMOND (an english surname)

Thanks in advance

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.232.205.37 (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your surname does not have a standard Latin or Aramaic form. Surnames generally cannot be translated. However, Latin documents in premodern or early modern times often tacked on "-us" at the end of a surname for males or "-a" for females. Using this method, your surname in Latin would be "Osmondus" (male) or "Osmonda" (female). There is no corresponding Aramaic form of "Osmond", since there was never a practice of rendering European names in Aramaic. You could transliterate your name into the Aramaic script, however. Note that Aramaic is written from right to left, and that the symbols indicate only consonants and long vowels. Since "Osmond" lacks long vowels, there would be no symbols for vowels, but there would be an initial symbol for a glottal stop. Applying these rules would produce a transliteration something like this:

Marco polo (talk) 21:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to The Oxford Dictionary of Christian Names, "Osmundus" and "Hosmundus" are actually attested (in the Domesday Book) Latin forms of "Osmond" as a given name. You could also use a Latinization based on the name's meaning—as Gheert Cremer became known to history as Gerardus Mercator, since cremer and mercator both mean "merchant", or as Philipp Schwartzerd Hellenized his surname (="black earth") as Melanchthon. The elements of Osmond mean "god" and "protection", so something like "Deimunimentum", though unwieldy, might be appropriate. Deor (talk) 00:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sphincter Boots[edit]

A pair of pointed Italian shoes popular in the 1960s. So named by Prof Sven Sundquist of U of B.C. in mid-60s for their ability to rupture one's sphincter if kicked with said boots on. the original pair were several sizes too large (men's size 9) worn by 7 year old Lyle Manchester of North Vancouver B.C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny7oma (talk • contribs) 22:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating. Now, did you have a question? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect he'd like some more information. The description makes me think of winklepickers like in this picture [1] Steewi (talk) 00:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S. we call severely pointed shoes 'roach-killers' because you can get a roach with them even if it's cornered. -LambaJan (talk) 04:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]