Oh; I see...
Oh; I see...
Forgive me, but no, I don't think you do. A publisher or editor does not have the liberty of changing the text of what an author has written, or even even the spelling or a malapropism, without some kind of a marginal notation that the printer/publisher has done this without the author's permission. That principle is even stricter as applied to the copyist in transmitting the text of a Holy Weitings.
However, translating the text into another language of another time and/or another culture may require some interpretive input. To maintain a literal, grammatical, syntactical equivalence, the interpretive portion is held to an absolute minimum, and a notation of some kind made when such a deviation is made.
But when the rendition into another language takes the "dynamic equivalency" tack, the renderer is likely to wander quite a ways from what the original author intended, claiming to have the goal of putting into the reader's mind (or idiom) that which was in the author's mind (or idiom).
So, the look that the little girl has might be her response to what Daddy said when he interprets in other terms what Mommy has said. But if he misquotes Mommy's words, the little girl will beetle her brows and say, "No! that's not what Mommy said!"
Got it?