[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Muckraker

British English is another language. Why should we ignore the fact that an untranslated word will unnecessarily confuse the target audience--kids all around the world? Writers won't use complex technical jargon in their children's books when there is another word that means essentially the same thing.

Oh, OK, I guess I'm bilingual then: I'm fluent in American English and I get by in British English. Who knew?

I don't like T.S. Eliot for this exact reason. He used multiple different languages in the same poem and provided no footnotes, translation, or explanation. What he was essentially saying to me--the reader--is that I'm not smart enough to read his poems. His intention was to filter out readers not in his target audience. If he had included footnotes with translations his target audience would have grown.

Maybe what mattered to him wasn't the size of his audience but precision of language. Maybe he wanted just this specific shade of meaning, and not that other ever-so-slightly different meaning. Sometimes there are words in other languages that cannot be precisely translated. But it doesn't matter why--it only matters that he made the choices he did, and you are not allowed to change them because you don't approve.

I don't think writers of children's books are interested in filtering people out though.

Not knowing the meaning of a word is one thing. 95% of readers knowing the correct meaning of a modern word when the word was used for its archaic or foreign definition though...

If it's extremely distracting, like the words "gay" or "faggot," and the work in question is genre fiction for kids I don't see any benefits of leaving the word there. What are the benefits?

Faithfulness to what the author originally wrote. Recognition that language is changeable. Appreciation of the beauty of words. Expansion of one's understanding of the past.

What I know is that I'm publishing obscure books today, for the enjoyment of readers today. And I know that the author, if he/she was writing the exact same book today, would not use that word in that way. I feel, in the cases I have noted, it is safe to assume they would have chosen the word that conveys the correct idea. To do otherwise would be to assume the writer lacked the skill to choose an appropriate word.

You KNOW the author would want the change? Are you channeling the author? You know only that YOU want the change.

If I had written "I hate fags" in a sci-fi novel decades ago, and then died, I would prefer it be corrected. I would prefer people give me the benefit of the doubt and assume I did not intend a definition that did not exist when I wrote the word.

Fine, you can leave instructions that the books you write should be periodically cleansed of offensive language. Authors who did not leave such directions should be left alone.