Talk:Kim de l'Horizon

translation of title
although it is clear that de l'horizon had intended to reference the copper beech in the book's title, as noted by nzz here, i had used the translation "Blood Book" because it was the only one i had found in reliable english-language sources at the time. (an english-language swiss source, from swissinfo, also uses "Blood Book", though i had somehow missed it at the time and cited a french-language source from swissinfo instead.) a sample translation of part of the book's text, provided by dumont (the publisher), uses the translation "Bloodbook", without a space. (i ended up including a space, like many secondary sources do, to conform with the norms of spacing in english.) the sample translation's text also includes a mention of the tree, so i believe the translator deliberately chose not to use the tree as the title's translation. my (admittedly pitiful) understanding of swiss german leads me to believe that "Blutbuche", with an 'e', is how the word referring to the tree is generally spelt (as seen in the aforementioned source in nzz, a newspaper based in zürich), although i understand that there isn't really a standard orthography of swiss german.given all of the above, i worry that providing "Copper beech" as the gloss for the book's title, though well-meant, may actually be misleading. would it be more appropriate to use "Blood Book" as the gloss, but add a footnote explaining the reference to the tree?pinging, who provided the translation from swiss german. dying (talk) 11:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Blutbuch is Swiss-German dialect for what in standard German is Blutbuche, which would literally translate as "blood beech", the type of tree actually called copper beech. The term Blutbuch does not exist in standard German (and would be considered a typo for Blutbuche), but it could be constructed as a compound from the words Blut (blood) and Buch (book). If so, a "Blutbuch", in standard German, would be (literally) a book of blood or (artistically) a book discussing gross violence.
 * It is quite possible that the author deliberately chose the book's title to have different meanings depending on if interpreted as Swiss-German or standard German. Other Swiss-German terms like Grossmeer or Meer used in the book also have different meanings depending on context - in standard German Meer is an ocean or sea (and Grossmeer does not exist as a term, but if used as a compound, it would be a large ocean), whereas in Bernese dialect Meer means Mutter (mother) and a Grossmeer is a Großmutter (grandmother), so there is a similar ambiguity here as well. In the book, the author uses Blutbuch to refer to the tree and (Gross)meer to refer to the protagonist's (grand)mother, but this doesn't exclude double-meanings on a meta level.
 * I have no issues with moving the translation and further explanations into a footnote, in fact I was considering this as well. If we do, we should only leave the plain title "Blutbuch" in the prose and not try to offer a translation for it in line.
 * --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:11, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * that makes sense, . i had not realized that de l'horizon actually used "Blutbuch" to refer to the tree in the novel, as i had only seen the translated text.  in that case, i agree that it may be better to place both translations in the footnote, so as to not express a clear preference for either one.  as you have a far better grasp of the nuances of the situation than i do, i think it would be better if you drafted the footnote, if you are willing.by the way, my current understanding of when to use a hyphen when referring to the dialect is that a hyphen is not used when "Swiss German" is a standalone noun (e.g., "I wish I was fluent in Swiss German"), but is used when "Swiss-German" is used attributively (e.g., "There are many Swiss-German dialects").  i think this is because "Swiss German" does not appear to be normally hyphenated on en wikipedia, while there may be a slight difference of meaning between "Swiss German dialect" and "Swiss-German dialect".  the article on swiss german doesn't fully conform to this though, so i could easily be wrong.  dying (talk) 07:52, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * , i have gone ahead and added a footnote to further explain the title. please correct me if i have made any mistakes.  thanks!  dying (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

birth date
, do you have a reliable source for that birth date? i have seen it elsewhere, but only in unreliable sources. dying (talk) 07:53, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

blick has recently reported de l'horizon's date of birth, so i have now added a citation to that source. dying (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Their pronouns are they)/them
Please be considerate 2001:1C02:1914:4200:1D56:8A72:CD37:D8 (talk) 08:36, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Every human contains either xx or xy chromosomes. This asinine attempt to be "gender fluid" is devolution at it's best. We're not amphibians. If there's ever a subject to "trust the hard science" of anatomy/physiology/genetics, this is one of them.  Someone needs to put HIS gender pronouns back into the appropriate, biological gender. 132.147.145.84 (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. Based. 2. This violates the Wikipedia guideline on Gender identities. lol1 VNIO ( I made a mistake?  talk to me ) 18:41, 22 December 2022 (UTC)