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

[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.