linguistic puzzlers

[kindkit]

I'm reading John Le Carré's latest, A Delicate Truth, and I'm finding a lot of what look like Americanisms in the text. It's bugging me because I don't know if (a) some language was changed for the American edition, (b) it's just that American expressions increasingly creep into British English, or (c) Le Carré is using them deliberately to make points about his characters.

If the text was Americanized by the US publisher, it's been done very inconsistently. On the one hand, "pants" is used in the American sense (Br.Eng. = trousers); on the other, "fairy lights" is left untranslated.

Have I mentioned that I hate it when British books are Americanized by US publishers? I am not a ten-year-old reading Harry Potter; I'm not going to put the book down in frustration if I encounter an unfamiliar phrase.

Does anyone know if US books are Anglicized/Australianized for those markets? Or is US cultural hegemony strong enough that they're left unchanged even though the reverse isn't true?

Comments

[tree_and_leaf]

Particularly if he was mocking someone for being posh/ Southern. I can think of reasons why a British character might say 'soccer'. Pants for trousers, however, is definitely an Americanism and not one which has gained any traction - I think most people know what Americans mean by it, but I've never heard anyone use it like that.

[hagsrus]

We've had many English/American discussions in Pros, and somebody from the north of England popped up and said pants for trousers was a local usage, confounding most of us.

It's a word I avoid like the plague these days since it gives me a sort of cross-eyed vision of a simultaneous under and outer garment.

I seem to recall some of Ruth Rendell's/Barbara Vine's books referring to petrol, others to gas, so I suppose some were less molested than others.