Quote:
Originally Posted by Yapyap
In general, I'm not opposed to very minor updating (when noted as such in the preface) - specifically in spelling, either for internal consistency in the text or for consistency with modern usage (in particular such cases that might be mistaken for typos otherwise, e.g. freind -> friend); to-day -> today would also not bother me but at the same time I'm familiar with to-day and find it pleasantly quaint, part of the overall feeling and atmosphere of reading an older book.
Actual vocabulary changes though... I'd really prefer it if that didn't happen. I suppose I see why they happen in children's books modernised for today's sensibilities, but in older works more likely to be read by people over ten years old, definitely not. Footnotes (leaving the original word and adding a footnote explaining its usage or giving a modern equivalent) are a much better way to go about any obsolete or potentially confusing words, IMHO.
(I started reading 19th century English literature - printed, not particularly modernised editions - when I was about 17-18, as a non-native speaker. This was before the era of Internet and before using English actively in my daily life. Yeah, it was a bit of a struggle for the first few months, but dictionaries exist and it gets easier the more you read.)
|
Hear hear to all that. Hell, my kid knew that "gay" in old books didn't mean homosexual by the time he was about seven. 'Cos we read Enid Blyton, and I explained it. It's really not that hard.