Hundreds of changes made to latest editions of Roald Dahl's books

Re:Hundreds of changes made to latest editions of Roald Dahl... by stuaxo on Saturday February 18, 2023 @07:24PM (#34852683)

"folks" is possible the most egerious of these as it's an American version of English and Roald Dahl, while not English was spoke in the English version of English, not the US version.

"Everyone" or "people" would make more sense

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Hundreds of changes made to latest editions of Roald Dahl... by nonethewiser on Saturday February 18, 2023 @09:22PM (#34853541)

Or, you know, ladies and gentleman

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Hundreds of changes made to latest editions of Roald Dahl... by egonschiele on Saturday February 18, 2023 @10:26PM (#34853984)

I would guess the change was made because they felt ladies and gentlemen does not account for non-binary genders

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Hundreds of changes made to latest editions of Roald Dahl... by Quarrelsome on Saturday February 18, 2023 @10:50PM (#34854146)

does that matter when there don't appear to be any non-binary people in any of Roald Dahls works?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Hundreds of changes made to latest editions of Roald Dahl... by tohnjitor on Saturday February 18, 2023 @11:07PM (#34854266)

Oh my goodness how dare he!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Hundreds of changes made to latest editions of Roald Dahl... by salawat on Sunday February 19, 2023 @04:52AM (#34856023)

Did you just assume their gender?

(I'll see myself out.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Hundreds of changes made to latest editions of Roald Dahl... by type0 on Tuesday February 21, 2023 @06:46PM (#34889442)

they forgot the queers so it should have been "folx" in double-non-binary

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Hundreds of changes made to latest editions of Roald Dahl... by gedy on Sunday February 19, 2023 @12:14AM (#34854719)

Goodness how could he assume that before asking their personal pronouns? /s

[ Parent | on HN ]