Comments on: Visitors as Pleasant Distractions

By: On Parents and Physicists | Cosmic Variance

On Parents and Physicists | Cosmic Variance — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 02:13:17 +0000

[...] First Clifford and then JoAnne have recently written about what their families think of them being physicists and whether they understand what it is their children actually do. These are interesting questions, not only because they explore the personal side of being a physicist, but also because a close look at physicists’ parents might shed some light on the kinds of backgrounds that help kids to succeed in science. [...]

By: Jackie M.

Jackie M. — Sun, 16 Oct 2005 19:25:12 +0000

Apparently they also eat dung. Yuk, dung.

By: ellroon

ellroon — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 20:05:02 +0000

Thanks. Appreciate knowing the difference.

By: Clifford

Clifford — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 06:02:34 +0000

ellroon: Thanks. Two cents are welcome. If everybody contributes a little like that we'll all be the richer. fig-eater beetle vs fig beetle. Both names are in use. See the wikipedia entry, and the narrative on adults of the species they link to near the end. Oh, and it should not be confused with the Japanese beetle*. Cheers, -cvj *I love Google.

By: ellroon

ellroon — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 05:53:15 +0000

Wandered on to your site. Hope you don’t mind if I add my two cents.

Here in Southern California the beetle is known as a fig beetle and I’ve heard someone say ‘Japanese beetle’ as well.

I bought both versions of Harry Potter in the beginning (we had a friend in England at the time). One term that delighted us: popping your clogs translated to American as kicking the bucket.

By: Clifford

Clifford — Thu, 13 Oct 2005 17:57:04 +0000

jackie M – It is indeed Cotinis mutabilis – fig-eater beetle! Thanks! ….and now I know who’s been getting to some of the delicious figs I’ve been growing before I do!!

Thanks again!

-cvj

By: Clifford

Clifford — Thu, 13 Oct 2005 17:54:22 +0000

Me too. And I certainly could not squish something so huge and so beautiful, even if I wanted to.

-cvj

By: Lil

Lil — Thu, 13 Oct 2005 17:09:59 +0000

Quote:
>Changing it is kind of like changing “the immaculate conception” to “the clean conception” because “immaculate” is just too difficult a word.
>

. . . the church of the conception without messy exchange of bodily fluids . . .
—
Having once indulged in amateur entolmology in my youth, I continue to find insects and arachnids to be beautiful and interesting. I try to do my part to educate the young people who cross my path about appreciation for insects and the lack of necessity for summarily squashing some of them.

By: Cosmic Variance

Cosmic Variance — Thu, 13 Oct 2005 04:42:06 +0000

On Parents and Physicists

First Clifford and then JoAnne have recently written about what their families think of them being physicists and whether they understand what it is their children actually do. These are interesting questions, not only because they explore the persona…

By: janet

janet — Wed, 12 Oct 2005 18:26:30 +0000

Actually, it’s not clear to me that the later books weren’t messed with (much if at all) because of complaints. I think a lot of it probably had to do with the editorial cycle and the imperative to bring the book out everywhere simultaneously — less time for fiddling in the process of getting the book into print. (The fourth and fifth books were really poorly edited to begin with, IMO.) This was not an issue with the first book because it didn’t come out in the US until it after it had come out in the UK. With the first book, there was a lot of concern about making the book “accessible” to Americans because the publishers weren’t sure it would take off as it had in the UK. Once the books became so popular in the US, that became less of an issue.

As for their rationale for making the changes, the editors have talked about that — basically they wanted to make it easier for American kids to understand what in the books is part of the world Rowling created, rather than thinking that ordinary British idioms and vocabulary were things that were made up for the books. I’m not sure the changes they made helped much with that, or that it’s even a reasonable goal, but that was the explanation. Rowling approved the changes at the time, though now that she has more clout she might not be willing to do that.

The thing that bothers me about changing “philospher’s stone” to “sorcerer’s stone” is that the philosopher’s stone is a concept with a very specific history in alchemy. Changing it is kind of like changing “the immaculate conception” to “the clean conception” because “immaculate” is just too difficult a word.