Pedants' Paradise

[vinteuil]

Cf contemporary usage of "washroom" and/or "bathroom"; both, basically, euphemisms for more basic bodily functions.

... as indeed is 'lavatory' (from the Latin lavatorium, "wash basin" or "washroom").

While they all 'mean the same thing' the different words serve as linguistic class-markers, and as with many taboo subjects there are not unsurprisingly quite a few euphemistic ways of expressing it - but the use of WC, lavatory, toilet, bog, loo, 'bathroom' (only US?), 'little boy's room' &c will carry quite distinctive connotations.
I confess I come from a time and place where 'toilet' as a word really grates. Poor Mme v had to accept that her sons- and daughters-in-law would use 'toilet' without flinching...

.

[french frank]

... as indeed is 'lavatory' (from the Latin lavatorium, "wash basin" or "washroom").
.

I assume your preference is for garderobe? :-)

[Sir Velo]

... as indeed is 'lavatory' (from the Latin lavatorium, "wash basin" or "washroom").

While they all 'mean the same thing' the different words serve as linguistic class-markers, and as with many taboo subjects there are not unsurprisingly quite a few euphemistic ways of expressing it - but the use of WC, lavatory, toilet, bog, loo, 'bathroom' (only US?), 'little boy's room' &c will carry quite distinctive connotations.
I confess I come from a time and place where 'toilet' as a word really grates. Poor Mme v had to accept that her sons- and daughters-in-law would use 'toilet' without flinching...

.

Quite so and that's of course how the present meaning of "toilet" came about, as a euphemism derived from the victorian expression to "make one's toilet". Like you I shudder at the sound of "toy-let" but "loo" always strikes as so prissily coy - like "poo", All other alternatives are basically unsatisfactory: "see a man about a dog"; "spend a penny" "looking for the facilities" "shake hands with the unemployed" etc etc.

[vinteuil]

I assume your preference is for garderobe? :-)

... o no.

"Where does one micturate / defecate?" would surely serve??

[Serial_Apologist]

Since March Sainsbury’s has invested more than £188 million in lowering prices across more than 120 essentials, such as bread, butter, milk, pasta, chicken and lavatory paper.

From The Times this morning.
It still insists on using this expression rather than toilet paper/roll/tissue.

Does anyone else?

Only for bog standard...

I haven't heard the cockney word "john" used for toilet/lavatory since coming back to live here. I have heard "lav", of course, but that's pretty much anywhere. Some Americans use the slang word "can".

[Pulcinella]

The US usage can sometimes be rather unintentionally humorous:

She went to the bathroom in her knickers.

[oddoneout]

…that nomenclature is on the decline - some are now called toilets!

These days such facilities often come with all sorts of new indications of who they are intended for(ie not just the traditional male/female) which isn't always helpful when the need is urgent.

[gurnemanz]

As a reader of 19th-century novels, I can't get over the change in the meaning of 'toilet' , which used to mean one's appearance when washed and brushed.

Probably preferable to use "toilette" to convey that sense nowadays. Also, "toilet water" sounds less appealing than "eau de toilette".

WC is an interesting variant, in quite common use in UK, but the word "closet" is not really used in that sense at all. In Germany you will often see WC written on a loo door but in common parlance it is abbreviated as "Klo" with a k, as in: "ich gehe aufs Klo", "Klopapier" etc

[Old Grumpy]

These days such facilities often come with all sorts of new indications of who they are intended for(ie not just the traditional male/female) which isn't always helpful when the need is urgent.

There are some symbols on the doors to the "facilities" in the Stephen Joseph Theatre in Scarborough which are indecipherable to the uninitiated!

[Serial_Apologist]

There are some symbols on the doors to the "facilities" in the Stephen Joseph Theatre in Scarborough which are indecipherable to the uninitiated!

Or cross-dressers!

[kernelbogey]

My brother, fresh out of University c1963 lodged with an American lady: when he asked where he could fill the kettle to make tea in his room, he was flumoxed by her reply 'There's a faucet in the john'.

I was amused to hear an American complain that 'the dog went to the bathroom on the rug'.

[smittims]

I'd be interested to see what others think about the recurrent ancillary words and phrases people insert into conversations, especially into answers in interviews. 'So...' 'hey, listen!...' 'D'you know what?...' ''If I'm honest,...' and so on. I think they're redundant and irritating, and they distract the listener from the useful content of the sentence. But I've heard some say that they are a useful lubricant , helping the flow of the conversation.

Older listeners will remember when spontaneous unscripted speech was not allowed on air. The conversation was recorded and edited, and broadcast while read from an edited transcript. I suppose this was abandoned because it sounded stilted. But have we gone too far? Sometimes I can understand only half of a conversation on Radio 4.

[Old Grumpy]

I'd be interested to see what others think about the recurrent ancillary words and phrases people insert into conversations, especially into answers in interviews. 'So...' 'hey, listen!...' 'D'you know what?...' ''If I'm honest,...' and so on. I think they're redundant and irritating, and they distract the listener from the useful content of the sentence. But I've heard some say that they are a useful lubricant , helping the flow of the conversation.

Older listeners will remember when spontaneous unscripted speech was not allowed on air. The conversation was recorded and edited, and broadcast while read from an edited transcript. I suppose this was abandoned because it sounded stilted. But have we gone too far? Sometimes I can understand only half of a conversation on Radio 4.

Yes, they can act as a lubricant and also perhaps a space during which the conversant* can form what they want to say. Must say, "so" particularly annoys me though. When contestants in a game show are asked "What do you do?", many (mainly younger) commence with "So" [pause]... - you'd think they'd know what they did!


* Is that a word in this context - if not, I apologise to all pedants herein!

[french frank]

* Is that a word in this context - if not, I apologise to all pedants herein!

To the OED >>>>>>>>>>>>> No, there is no current usage of 'conversant' as a noun, and obsolete usages don't seem to include the meaning of 'someone holding a conversation with someone else'.

'So' at the beginning of a sentence is the modern replacement for 'Well' and serves the same purpose. It has no meaning corresponding with the traditional use of 'so'.

[oddoneout]

To the OED >>>>>>>>>>>>> No, there is no current usage of 'conversant' as a noun, and obsolete usages don't seem to include the meaning of 'someone holding a conversation with someone else'.

'So' at the beginning of a sentence is the modern replacement for 'Well' and serves the same purpose. It has no meaning corresponding with the traditional use of 'so'.

In addition to giving space and time for putting together a reply it's a form of place-holding. Making "a" response indicates that the person has heard what was said and intends to provide "the " response. The concept of taking time to reply and therefore tolerating silences between utterances doesn't fit in today's snap judgement/instant response(however banal/inaccurate/damaging) world.