Help with wording

[donutsweeper]

UK peeps, a question on wording (that I'm too embarrassed about to post over at  dw_britglish .)

For a US character I would say that, after receiving a a life-altering injury, a character is barely capable of going to the bathroom by himself.  Bathroom, in this case, would mean the ability to use the toilet and wash up and whatnot.

Would the UK wording be "use the w.c. (or is it WC) by himself" or simply toilet or lavatory or....?  Help!

Comments

[sistercarrion.livejournal.com]

Yeah, not WC.

Not lavatory unless you're after a degree of formality. Toilet would be more usual than bathroom in the UK. Loo tends to be informal, light-hearted even.

[donutsweeper.livejournal.com]

I was pretty sure that WC wasn't used, even if the dictionaries insisted on it. Okay, so toilet seems more the term to use.

SO- would "they'd gotten him to the point where he could manage the simplest of tasks if prompted. Eating. Dressing. Using the toilet. But anything else was beyond his abilities." work?

[sistercarrion.livejournal.com]

Yup, yup. That sounds right to my ears anyway.

[donutsweeper.livejournal.com]

Excellent, thanks!

[hellenebright.livejournal.com]

Just lose the "gotten". It's terrible English (although fine American I believe).

"They had got him to the point..." but even that sounds a little strange. "They had reached the point where..." just works a little better for me.

Also...because we are much more literal in some things, when I originally read the question, I thought the poor sod had his pecker blown off or some such, and hence couldn't actually pass urine unaided. After reading the thread, I gather that he has had some kind of mental breakdown, and you wanted an expression in English English that would convey this idea, where "couldn't even go to the bathroom" would be used in American english.

I'm not actually sure that a Brit would use lavatorial competence as a measure of mental health...because we use such literal expressions, and even the most unaware patient can pass urine (unless scenario above prevails).

We might say "he's barely toilet trained" but that literally means he's as likely to pee in his pants as anywhere else.

You're scenario, we'd perhaps be more likely to say "they'd coaxed him to about the level of a three year old. He could use a knife and fork. Dress himself if you laid the clothes out. Use the toilet. That kind of thing."

[donutsweeper.livejournal.com]

I'd already changed it to "they'd managed to get him..."

The story starts with a struggle to get Jack to feed himself and then continues with the fact that although they'd managed to get him to learn the basics (where I just list them- eating, dressing, using the toilet) but nothing else. He's just a shell, capable of existing, but nothing more.

[hellenebright.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I eventually realised that was what you meant (I'm slow, I know). It's my weird psychology or something. Many years ago, I was on an archaeological dig site, to which two American women arrived one morning as new volunteer diggers.

This being 1976, we had progressed beyond the slit trench, and had "The Elsan" - a portable chemical toilet in a small square tent. So when the two ladies announced that they had to "go to the bathroom", it caused much unintentional hilarity.

Given the british propensity for scatology, this has stayed with me, and to this day I always assume that "use the bathroom" is a euphemism only for "pee", hence my bizarre train of thought.


On a different note, hope Jack isn't in that state *too* long....

[donutsweeper.livejournal.com]

*g* It depends. Broken!Jack is fun to play with.

archaeological dig? Wow! Sounds fascinating

[kensieg.livejournal.com]

what did he do that he's so broken?

[donutsweeper.livejournal.com]

now, now... that would be telling! :)

(aka I haven't decided yet so have avoided mentioning what happened to make him that way other than alluding to it in broad strokes)

[hellenebright.livejournal.com]

Crickley Hill 1976. At the time it was one of the few continuous occupation sites in Britain - now we know there are a lot of sites that remained in continuous occupation for thousands of years.

[donutsweeper.livejournal.com]

wow- sounds like a great learning opportunity

[hellenebright.livejournal.com]

Actually, the most interesting thing that happened was that Thomas Kinsella, the author of the modern translation of the Tain turned up to give a lecture to the assembled diggers. And he wondered whether the c7th CE scribe who had written down the legend - afraid that the storytelling tradition would be lost - had somehow captured memories of a Bronze Age court a thousand years older.

Which might seem far fetched, but then (later) I met Francis Pryor, whose world is the Bronze Age. And he reminded us that whereas to make an iron sword, a smith takes a lump of metal and beats it out with a hammer, to make a bronze sword, the smith melts a lump of metal and casts it in a stone mould, then pulls the casting from the mould. Just like Arthur pulling the sword from the stone.

[donutsweeper.livejournal.com]

oooh cool. I never put together the fact that the older method of metallurgy involved molds and casts like that.

[hellenebright.livejournal.com]

Most people hadn't until Dr Pryor pointed it out.

But for the most part, digs are hard work, uncomfortable (either too hot, or cold or wet or something), can be boring, occasionally dangerous (try taking a loaded barrow up a wet run) and you can guarantee that the most interesting find always runs under the spoil heap.

[donutsweeper.livejournal.com]

but did you enjoy it?

[hellenebright.livejournal.com]

On the whole yes, as much for the people as anything else. UK field archaeology can be interesting. But I decided not to do it for a living.