3 ms·

> might confuse some Americans who hadn’t heard that usage. Imagine learning something about the world after reading (or hearing) a book!

slowmovintarget 3y ago
This! One of the things that used to happen is you'd pick up a book, and encounter a word or phrase you don't know or understand, and you'd go look it up. This is easier than ever with the internet. Don't know why someone would "rent a flat?" You go look the phrase up and discover that it's British usage. Confusion over... because you learned. Reading Moby Dick and don't know what "scraggy scoria" is? You look the words up and learn they're the perfect fit for the landscape Melville is painting. https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/scraggy https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/scraggy https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/scoria https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/scoria
seanhunter 3y ago
I basically agree and wouldn't want things to be changed in general. That being said, the choice of words in a novel should generally be governed by the artistic intent of the author rather than the desire to teach people stuff. But here's an example that's worth thinking through. This movie https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110428/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110428/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 was called "The Madness of King George". It's based on a play called "The Madness of George III". They changed the name when producing the movie because of the difference between Britain and the US. In Britain pretty much everyone would know that George III refers to King George III. However when they first started discussing this project in the US, a common reaction was "I haven't seen "The Madness of George 1 and 2". Now the differences between the titles wasn't that important and clearly this was just an impediment to understanding with no benefit. Now you could say "Well the people could go on wikipedia and find out that there was a King George and a King George II and then this guy, George III" and that's true but the problem is negative self-selection. People who don't know that don't realise that's what's at play here and so won't do that search so nobody learns anything.
- froggit 3y ago
  It's not particularly reassuring that "George III" (spoken aloud as "George the Third" ), and "George 3" (spoken aloud as "George Three" ) are apparently thought to be interchangeable in the US.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

slowmovintarget 3y ago

This! One of the things that used to happen is you'd pick up a book, and encounter a word or phrase you don't know or understand, and you'd go look it up. This is easier than ever with the internet. Don't know why someone would "rent a flat?" You go look the phrase up and discover that it's British usage. Confusion over... because you learned. Reading Moby Dick and don't know what "scraggy scoria" is? You look the words up and learn they're the perfect fit for the landscape Melville is painting. https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/scraggy https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/scraggy https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/scoria https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/scoria

seanhunter 3y ago

I basically agree and wouldn't want things to be changed in general. That being said, the choice of words in a novel should generally be governed by the artistic intent of the author rather than the desire to teach people stuff. But here's an example that's worth thinking through. This movie https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110428/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110428/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 was called "The Madness of King George". It's based on a play called "The Madness of George III". They changed the name when producing the movie because of the difference between Britain and the US. In Britain pretty much everyone would know that George III refers to King George III. However when they first started discussing this project in the US, a common reaction was "I haven't seen "The Madness of George 1 and 2". Now the differences between the titles wasn't that important and clearly this was just an impediment to understanding with no benefit. Now you could say "Well the people could go on wikipedia and find out that there was a King George and a King George II and then this guy, George III" and that's true but the problem is negative self-selection. People who don't know that don't realise that's what's at play here and so won't do that search so nobody learns anything.

froggit 3y ago
It's not particularly reassuring that "George III" (spoken aloud as "George the Third" ), and "George 3" (spoken aloud as "George Three" ) are apparently thought to be interchangeable in the US.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]