Keskustelujen arkisto

Quote from user: sirredknee"Merry pocket books"?
English is a "funny" :) language. In it, the word "Merry" is used to describe a feeling a person has. It cannot be used to describe the feelings an inanimate object gives to humans or animals. So, unless the book has arms and legs (and can do a little song and dance), it shouldn't be described as "a merry book". The film: "The Pagemaster" (which I worked on as a digital painter) had books with arms and legs, as its "stars" (along with McCauley Caulkin). But that's another story (heh, heh) :) .

"Fun Pocketbook", or "Much Fun Pocketbook", or "High Degree of Pleasure Pocketbook", would be best.

Actually, "High Degree of Pleasure-Giving Pocketbook" might be most accurate. But who would buy a comic pocketbook with such a title? It might sell well in a porno shop.

(Excerpt from "Tales of The Merry Pocketbook"):

I can see the "Merry Pocketbook" dancing up the road, whistling a merry tune, spreading cheer wherever he goes.

"Good morning Mr. Pocketbook!"

"Yes, what a fine day it is, Mr. Lamppost!" "The birds are singing, and the clouds are dancing!"

"I wonder if mean old Mr. Crotchety Fence will try to spoil everyone's mood"

Little did Mr. Lamppost know that this beautiful, sunny morning mood would soon change.

Quote from user: Gerd SyllwasschyWell, I remember a cartoon series called "Merry Melodies". A melody doesn't exactly have arms and legs, does it? ;)
Quite right! A song can be merry. But a book can't. Just an arbitrary peculiarity of English, that we can use to weed out terrorist spies.

Or, perhaps (I should say) we USED to use it to weed out spies. But now that The Americans, and even the Brits and other native English speakers don't read much any more, and are much poorer at knowing their own language, we can no longer use such language usages for that purpose.

A Christmas can be merry, as well. But a Christmas pudding can't. It can be jolly, however. I'm not sure that a book can be jolly. It is understandable in English, but not used in colloquial speech. You can always tell a "foreigner" in that way, regardless of how well he/she can mimic the sounds of the vowels, consonants and sylables of the language. It is how I speak German. People can understand what I am trying to say, but the word order and choice of synonyms is often not colloquial and just never spoken by natives.

Quote from user: Charlie BrownThe next German Lustiges Taschenbuch #391 will contain one story in English as a kind of a preview for the English Edition.
Does this also mean that the page count will be increased so that there will be enough pages both for the English story and for all of the regular stories?

The books, at least the first one, will include Egmont material exclusively (Fecchi, Andersen et al):
http://www.lustiges-taschenbuch.de/lustiges-taschenbuch/ltb-sonderbaende/ltb-sonderbaende-details/ltbnr/1-2.html
I guess the original Egmont scripts with rather simple English are used.

Quote from user: Gerd SyllwasschyWell, if they use the McGreals' original text, the vocabulary will become longer than the comic itself. :D Lars Jensen's style is far from simplistic, too.
Thanks, Gerd. Yeah, the dialogue in our TNT/OMA stories isn't exactly simplistic.

In most other cases, though, I do try to keep my dialogue as simple as possible. Back around the time I started working for Egmont, writers were actually instructed by a high-ranking Egmont boss (who has since retired) to keep their dialogue simple. Many countries have their own distinct type of dialogue (see Fuchs, for instance) and keeping the original Egmont dialogue simple gives translators room to add local "flavour" when they translate it.

Quote from user: CoolwaterNot fully correct, that statement. In the book "Carl Barks: Der Vater der Ducks" of 2002 Ehapa published some Barks classics in German as well as in English.
So then this would be the second English-language Disney comic publication published in the FRG?Quote:Also The Complete Daily Strip Adventures of Mickey Mouse 1930-1955 were published in Germany with the original English text. That thing was, however, not published by Ehapa, and it was a limited, exclusive (read: expensive) edition for folks who are hopelessly in love with the shorts-wearing rodent.
Besides, it was probably the only Disney comic publication ever to be published in the GDR.

Quote from user: sirredkneeI guess the original Egmont scripts with rather simple English are used.
I hope it's no new translation. But we can check it with "A Gal For Gladstone" in Uncle Scrooge #374. The new title "A Girl For Gladstone" speaks for simpler English :(