Child-friendly vocabulary --- a Quandary

[GrannyGrump]

Remember AlexBell's thread about "the days of innocence?" https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=262455
How suddenly it hit home for me. I have never "cleaned up" language in books I have prepared and uploaded to the library. (I don't count modernizing spelling as a "clean up".)

I am working on a children's book, "The Magic City", which is recommended for ages 7 - 14.
These are the paragraphs that concern me:

‘Yes; when my little girl was ailing you brought her a lot of pears off your own tree. Not one of ’em you didn’t ’ave yourself that year, Miss Helen told me. And you brought back our kitten – the sandy and white one with black spots – when it strayed. So I was quite willing to come and meet you when so told. And knowing something of young gentlemen’s peckers, owing to being in business once next door to a boys’ school, I made so bold as to bring you a snack.’

---------

Philip, now laid across the knees of the Pretenderette (a most undignified attitude for any boy, and I hope none of you may be placed in such a position), screamed as the cage struck the water, and, ‘Oh, Polly!’ he cried.

‘All right,’ the parrot answered; ‘keep your pecker up!’

‘What did it say?’ the Pretenderette asked.

‘Something about peck,’ said Philip upside down.

According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, Brits use the term to mean "courage". Americans don't.

I **know** that Americans, children AND adults, will snicker or maybe blush. Hey, I'm blushing just typing about it....

Also, "courage" does not fit the context of the first example paragraph. "Appetite", maybe? In the US, we sometimes "feel peckish" when we are hungry.

Anyway, I am hoping for feedback to give me an idea of the best way to go with this.

Thanks for any input!

[pdurrant]

The first use is unknown to me - an archaic slang term perhaps?*

The second use is a common British phrase, and not rude. One's pecker is one's nose. Equivalent to 'keep your chin up'.

If you are doing a general conversion from British to American (spelling, common words, etc) then it would be reasonable to change both instances. But if you are otherwise leaving the usage of (say) colour, tap, pavement, vest, etc., then I'd leave these too. You should add a 'Notes on the text' section, to either explain the change, or to note the meaning of the phrase if you leave it.



*Just found a reference: it is indeed an old slang term for appetite, from the work 'peck' in the meaning quantity (of food).

[GrannyGrump]

Thank you for the advice. I am leaving the spelling as British . Actually, my GB spell-checker had me correct a few words that were spelled American-style.

I guess I will make notes, and may I use your wording please? (with credit, of course!) It is beautifully succinct, and much better than anything I could devise. Something tells me I should also add a small warning on the download page.

[pdurrant]

Feel free to use or adapt my explanations, with or without credit.

[AlexBell]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

<-- snipped -->

The second use is a common British phrase, and not rude. One's pecker is one's nose. Equivalent to 'keep your chin up'.

<-- snipped -->

Perhaps there are regional or class differences in slang, and perhaps it changes over time.

I vaguely remember that 'pecker' was a slang term for the male sexual organ in Manchester slums during and after the war. In fact I vaguely remember being taken aback as an adolescent when I read the word in the sense of 'keeping one's courage up.' I certainly don't remember the word being used in the Manchester sense in Australia to where we emigrated 1952, and I've never heard 'pecker' being used for nose either in England or Australia. And I've no idea what the the word might mean in the US.

As I think the Guardian article mentioned any difficulties would be with the parents rather than the children.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by AlexBell

Perhaps there are regional or class differences in slang, and perhaps it changes over time.

It may well have that meaning when used on its own in some places in the UK. But words may change meaning but still retain the original meaning in a well-known phrase.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

It may well have that meaning when used on its own in some places in the UK. But words may change meaning but still retain the original meaning in a well-known phrase.

As in, for example, "Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled pepper".

[PeterT]

Peck is a unit of measure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peck

A peck is an imperial and United States customary unit of dry volume, equivalent to 2 gallons or 8 dry quarts or 16 dry pints (9.09 (UK) or 8.81 (US) liters). Two pecks make a kenning (obsolete), and four pecks make a bushel. Although the peck is no longer widely used, some produce, such as apples, is still often sold by the peck.

[GrannyGrump]

Just to kill any vestiges of naivete in the neighborhood, Americans (unless they are out among the trees looking at birds and counting woodpeckers), only use the term in its very rudest sense.

The word "peck" is treated innocently enough ( a peck of corn, a bird pecks its food). It is only when it gets the suffix that it becomes naughty.

Sigh... Who knew that a children's book could be so fraught with peril?

[darryl]

Originally Posted by GrannyGrump

Just to kill any vestiges of naivete in the neighborhood, Americans (unless they are out among the trees looking at birds and counting woodpeckers), only use the term in its very rudest sense.

The word "peck" is treated innocently enough ( a peck of corn, a bird pecks its food). It is only when it gets the suffix that it becomes naughty.

Sigh... Who knew that a children's book could be so fraught with peril?

Likewise in Australia.

I really do not like the text of works being altered, but I do understand why you want to do so here. I certainly believe that any alterations should always be noted. However, in this case, will the notes defeat the purpose? Is it going to result in a somewhat salacious notes section and giggling children?

Perhaps the solution is two versions. One would be clearly described as being edited so as to be suitable for children, and the other described as not edited and not suitable for children. This second would contain the notes section. Or perhaps the edited version only with the notes available for download separately.

Just raising it for discussion.

[Jellby]

While I understand the concern, maybe this would be a good opportunity to educate the children, instead of perpetuating the "problem". Shouldn't the children learn that words may have different meanings, especially in different places and times? Do you change the name of every character called Dick, or add a footnote? Is the rest of the text free from outdated words (like the names of the different kinds of horse carriage), so that it is still appropriate (not from the moral point of view, but simply from the understandability point of view) for 7-year-old children?

[HarryT]

It's a common practice. In film and TV adaptations of Arthur Ransome's classic children's story "Swallows and Amazons", for example, the character "Titty" (short for "Letitia") generally gets renamed these days, to "Kitty" in a BBC TV version, and "Tatty" in a film version that's currently being filmed.

The original name "Titty" was the real name of one of the three children of his friends, the Altounyans, whom Ransome taught to sail on holiday in the English Lake District one summer, an event which inspired the book. The names of all three children were used in the book.

[GrannyGrump]

Well, I had been making a very small glossary for the book anyway, so this is the note I am adding to the "About / Copyright" page:

Notes on the text:
I have added a very minimal glossary for some terms which are rather obscure, or no longer in general use, or in use primarily in Great Britain. Some definitions are simplified for children’s comprehension.

Caveat: The meanings of slang and idiomatic terms have evolved over the past century: some words, which were completely innocent then, have changed to more vulgar usage. Concerned parents may review the glossary for words they find objectionable, and edit the text accordingly.

What do you all think? Does this sound like a viable solution? Or should I follow darryll's advice, and make two versions?

[eschwartz]

Personally, I don't see any moral problems whatsoever with simply switching the words.

I call it "translation". Translating a word in an older dialect of English into the modern variant.
Do note somewhere that you have done so.


If this thread has shown anything, it is that even adults don't necessarily understand what the actual words of the book are supposed to mean.

Cue a recital in Old English by HarryT. And that certainly deserves an actual translation, for all that it is, um, technically just an older form of English?



I'm afraid I don't really understand the viewpoint of the people who keep saying in these threads that this qualifies as bowdlerization.

[GrannyGrump]

@eschwartz---
As strong as the temptation is to simply change the words, when it comes to the second example, that is NOT a simple change. It reverberates through the following three paragraphs, and no, I can't change the word "peck" to "chin". (OR to "nose") ---

Philip, now laid across the knees of the Pretenderette (a most undignified attitude for any boy, and I hope none of you may be placed in such a position), screamed as the cage struck the water, and, ‘Oh, Polly!’ he cried.

‘All right,’ the parrot answered; ‘keep your pecker up!

‘What did it say?’ the Pretenderette asked.

‘Something about peck,’ said Philip upside down.

‘Ah!’ said the Pretenderette with satisfaction, ‘he won’t do any more pecking for some time to come.’

This does put a different complexion on the matter, does it not? Which is why I really can't think of a graceful way to change the wording...