Quote:
Originally Posted by murraypaul
So would it be wrong for someone to publish a modern English version of:
If it were properly described as a modern version, rather than the original text?
Again, there are two separate things, preservation and entertainment.
They are in conflict.
I see no problem with an entertainment-focused version of a book, provided it is correctly described, and doesn't hurt the availability of a preservation-focused version.
|
This is really a red herring. We are talking about public domain works from the past century or so, and the propriety of changing words that have acquired new shades of meaning over the years, but are still perfectly recognizable and accessible. My trusty Merriam-Webster dictionary, 11th edition, still defines "fagot" as a bundle of sticks, "gay" as happy, and "dago" as a person of Italian or Spanish descent, with the tag "usually offensive." There is no reason to change such words for the modern reader.
Now, if someone wants to include annotations and footnotes defining such words in an older work and/or explaining that meanings have shifted, that's fine. But that is a far cry from changing the author's words after the fact.