Hi, Alexander!  Awhile ago you wrote in a message to Denis Mosko:   
      
    ak>  -----Beginning of the citation-----   
    ak>  They were temporarily detained by Peeves, who had jammed a   
    ak>  door on the fourth floor shut and was refusing to let anyone   
    ak>  pass until they set fire to their own pants, but Harry and   
    ak>  Ron simply turned back and took one of their trusted short   
    ak>  cuts. Within five minutes, they were climbing through the   
    ak>  portrait hole.   
    ak>  -----The end of the citation-----   
      
    ak>  Well.... Rowling is a British, so, if she writes about pants   
    ak>  she must have written about the school children underwear. ;=)   
                                                 |children's   
      
      
             Yes.  Since the author is British & her story takes place in the UK   
   it's entirely reasonable that she'd write in British English... and that as a   
   female she'd be well aware of the dress code for girls in traditional private   
   schools such as Hogwarts.  Boys wear trousers, girls wear skirts.  AFAIK both   
   are required to wear underpants.  If Peeves doesn't know what to do unless he   
   sees somebody wearing trousers Hermione could have figured that out & taken a   
   girl friend or two along with her.  Why should the boys get to do all the fun   
   stuff, eh??  I'm happy to see that in Rowling's work they don't... [chuckle].   
      
      
      
    ak>  Or,maybe, there are some proofreaders in the US that change   
    ak>  Rowling's words according to the American English dialect?   
      
      
             Editors, I think.  Proofreading = looking for typographical errors.   
   Editing is more complex.  It includes fixing syntactical & grammatical errors   
   ... which may require a bit of rewording.  It may also include deciding which   
   term would best convey the author's meaning to a particular audience....  :-)   
      
      
      
    ak>  This means that trousers in the US is an unacceptable   
    ak>  word? I doubt about it, but is there other explanation?   
    ak>  (My copy of this book was printed in the US).   
      
      
             Around these parts "trousers" is a perfectly acceptable word... and   
   none of my Canadian or USAian dictionaries include cautionary notes about it,   
   nor do they label it as [esp. UK].  In my experience, however, folks who were   
   born in North America are generally more accustomed to "pants".   
      
             Hmm....   
      
             Now you have me looking again at "Liar, liar, pants on fire".  Both   
   Mark & I remember it from our childhood.  As a kid I never thought to ask the   
   other kids what they meant, but I can assure you that in my neighbourhood the   
   girls used it to taunt other girls regardless of who wore dresses or skirts &   
   who didn't.  More info available from (thankyou, Dallas!)   
      
            http://www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/dictionary/pants-on-fire/   
      
      
      
    ak>  So, what do they demand to burn, in your copy  -- pants   
    ak>  or trousers? ;-)   
      
      
             Good question.  It's my understanding too that the US & UK editions   
   differ in some respects.  For you as a translator, however, I'd say the point   
   is that if you can get your work published the editors might well massage the   
   dialect to suit a particular market... so I wouldn't lose sleep over it.  ;-)   
      
      
      
      
   --- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+   
    * Origin: Wits' End, Vancouver CANADA (1:153/716)