 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Parenting / Parenting / March 2007Natural Infant Hygiene
I saw that someone had asked for books about NIH in another post, but I was wondering if anyone has tried it out. I am a first time mother of a one month old baby boy. I've been using disposables, and have managed to "catch" a poop here and there but I want to go completely diaper free. Any experiences with NIH? Any advice? >I saw that someone had asked for books about NIH in another post, but > I was wondering if anyone has tried it out. I am a first time mother [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Any experiences with NIH? > Any advice? I have a friend who did it very successfully. However my understanding is that you need to do it pretty much from birth, and also use washable nappies so they feel that they're wet. A couple of days wouldn't matter, but I suspect now they're a month old you've left it too long. Try searching google, or there are books out there on the subject. Debbie > I saw that someone had asked for books about NIH in another post, but > I was wondering if anyone has tried it out. I am a first time mother > of a one month old baby boy. I've been using disposables, and have > managed to "catch" a poop here and there but I want to go completely > diaper free. > Any experiences with NIH? IME there's nothing natural about hygiene! I presume this is a euphemism for Elimination Communication? Can't imagine why anyone would waste time on it, but surely it's your business and your carpet.  SignatureChookie -- Sydney, Australia (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply) "Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled." Kerry Cue Hi -- I've had several friends who did it, were successful with it, and were very happy they'd done it. You do need to really pay attention to your infant, though. It doesn't work if you've got your child in daycare, for example. It seems to work best for parents who do attachment-style parenting. That said, NO you don't need to start from day one! You can wait as much as several months if you like, although the earlier the better, since it's really a form of infant *communication*. (Don't think of it as hygiene or toilet training. It's not.) If you google for "elimination communication" or "elimination timing" you should find good articles that explain how to do it. In short ... Your baby communicates hunger by nuzzling, whimpering, then crying. You respond by feeding. Your infant also communicates a need to eliminate, usually by by language. But Americans DON'T respond to that, so the communication goes away. If you DO respond, by taking your baby to the bathroom and removing the diaper, you can then teach the baby to communicate more effectively. You grunt (to teach the baby to grunt) and say something (perhaps "poop time", or whatever your family prefers). Over time the baby will learn to make a "poop" grunt and eventually words will take over. You can help the process along by pro-actively taking your baby to the toilet at certain times, such as first thing in the morning, right before/after meals and before bed. (These are times when infants typically have to go.) The advantages to this method are that: baby has a way to communicate, environmentally friendly due to fewer diapers used (don't expect zero diapers for a while), baby is healther due to not sitting in its own waste. The disadvantage is primarily that it's a LOT of work for the parents, and if you can't get to a bathroom right away you get a screaming baby. I hope this helps, --Beth Kevles bethkevles@aol.com http://web.mit.edu/kevles/www/nomilk.html -- a page for the milk-allergic Disclaimer: Nothing in this message should be construed as medical advice. Please consult with your own medical practicioner. NOTE: No email is read at my MIT address. Use the AOL one if you would like me to reply. > I've had several friends who did it, were successful with it, and > were very happy they'd done it. You do need to really pay attention to > your infant, though. It doesn't work if you've got your child in > daycare, for example. It seems to work best for parents who do > attachment-style parenting. I do wonder if it's feasible when you have more than one child. > In short ... Your baby communicates hunger by nuzzling, whimpering, then > crying. You respond by feeding. Your infant also communicates a need [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > first thing in the morning, right before/after meals and before bed. > (These are times when infants typically have to go.) THis is the bit I have trouble with. If you take babies to the toilet at certain times, that isn't training the baby: it's training the parent. How do we know the "communication" isn't just self-delusion? > baby is healther due to not sitting in its own waste Rubbish. Hands up -- who's lost a child to cholera/typhoid/polio recently? SignatureChookie -- Sydney, Australia (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply) "Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled." Kerry Cue Hi, again -- Actually, it IS healthier for a baby not to sit in its own waste. Even without cholera and typhus. (Think "diaper rash" for example. Not a problem if the baby doesn't need a diaper.) Having seen elimination communication work, and work well for both parent and baby, I've come around to accept it as another parenting style. But as I said before, do NOT confuse it with toilet training! It involves the parent just as much as the child. Yes, babies who do it graduate to toilet training easily once they can handle the motor skills required, but that shouldn't be the parent's incentive. The first time I saw EC in action was when a friend's mother came from India to help with a newborn. Apparently in India this is the way *everyone* deals with infant waste. So I mentioned it to a friend fromm Boston whose first child was born with a kidney defect and could not, for health reasons, sit around in his own waste for more than minutes. My Boston friend decided to do EC, found it worked well, and did it again with her second child (who had no such defects). At the child's age of 2 she could remember EVERY dirty diaper she had changed since early infanct! (She's a very AP sort of parent, so EC fit in easily with her parenting philosophy.) My two cents, --Beth Kevles bethkevles@aol.com http://web.mit.edu/kevles/www/nomilk.html -- a page for the milk-allergic Disclaimer: Nothing in this message should be construed as medical advice. Please consult with your own medical practicioner. NOTE: No email is read at my MIT address. Use the AOL one if you would like me to reply. > Hi, again -- > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > NOTE: No email is read at my MIT address. Use the AOL one if you would > like me to reply. I was very curious about elimination communication but decided it won't work in my situation. There are many reasons why it works in India and doesn't here. It's amazing how much time they dedicate to the infant and mother there. The baby and mum practically stay in bed all day long with someone else attending on them. The mum has so much time to focus on things like these. Here most mums are on their own and the woh mums are back at work 6 or 12 weeks after child birth (USA). It's much easier to put a diaper on them and deal with the potty training when they can communicate verbally. EC is a good concept and very good for environment etc.. Sadly enough it won't work for me. Besides diapers are relatively cheaper here than they are in India. > Actually, it IS healthier for a baby not to sit in its own waste. Even > without cholera and typhus. (Think "diaper rash" for example. Not a > problem if the baby doesn't need a diaper.) It is true one of the usual treatments for nappy rash is a bare bottom, but this is transitory complaint. > Having seen elimination communication work, and work well for both > parent and baby, I've come around to accept it as another parenting > style. I'm sure it could work, but it seems to me to be time-consuming to the point that older children might be a bit neglected... and a slip-up could create serious embarrassment/annoyance. (I remember a thread where I was in the minority that thought a kid piddling on a tree in a park was OK...) > The first time I saw EC in action was when a friend's mother came from > India to help with a newborn. Apparently in India this is the way > *everyone* deals with infant waste. Due to the absence/unreliability of sewerage. > So I mentioned it to a friend fromm > Boston whose first child was born with a kidney defect and could not, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > since early infanct! (She's a very AP sort of parent, so EC fit in > easily with her parenting philosophy.) I'm fairly AP too, but I have too much carpet! SignatureChookie -- Sydney, Australia (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply) "Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled." Kerry Cue Myth one: Elimination communication means babies have accidents and you need to be in a situation where cleanup is easy. WRONG. Babies *communicate* their need to eliminate, and within a few months (maybe sooner) can "hold it in" for several minutes or longer. (In the early days a diaper might be wise, but don't expect it to get used a lot!) Myth two: EC takes lots of time on the parent's part. WRONG. It just means paying attention to your child, just as you do anyway. Instead of grabbing the bottle or sitting down to nurse, you just take your baby to the bathroom and undiaper, hold over toilet, then clean up after as usual. Myth three: EC must start at birth. WRONG. You can start at any infant age up to about 6 months, provided that you an stil SEE the straining when a baby wants to poop. (I'm actually not clear on how EC related to urine ...) It's certainly not for everyone! But if you're a SAH parent, or work REALLY well with a good nanny, then it's worth investigating. --Beth Kevles bethkevles@aol.com http://web.mit.edu/kevles/www/nomilk.html -- a page for the milk-allergic Disclaimer: Nothing in this message should be construed as medical advice. Please consult with your own medical practicioner. NOTE: No email is read at my MIT address. Use the AOL one if you would like me to reply. > Myth one: Elimination communication means babies have accidents and you > need to be in a situation where cleanup is easy. WRONG. Babies [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > straining when a baby wants to poop. (I'm actually not clear on how EC > related to urine ...) Child I saw would wave his left hand up and down in a very distinctive way when he needed to wee. He was doing this clearly by 2 weeks old and could hold for 10 minutes at 1 month old. He would wear a (washable) nappy when potentially in a situation that getting to a toilet was tricky, but rarely used it by that stage. If you held him to the toilet (to see if he neded to go) he would either go, or turn his head away to show he didn't. It is apparently a lot of watching for the first week or so, but once you've worked out the signalling, not as hard as you would expect. I think the main attention is that you're unlikely to find a nursery willing to do this, and even just leaving them with a friend for an hour can get more problematic. Debbie > Child I saw would wave his left hand up and down in a very distinctive way > when he needed to wee. > If you held him to the toilet (to see if he neded to > go) he would either go, or turn his head away to show he didn't. I am trying to practice EC with my newborn (well, one month old, is that still newborn?) I can catch the poops sometimes, but it's the pees i'm having a hard time with. I keep him in cloth nappies, but sometimes it seems he pees every five minutes, and it is a little fustrating to be constantly changing a diaper (and my shirt)! The left hand hint is good because i have noticed him doing that, and also if I'm holding him over the pot and he doesn't need to go he will arch his back and turn away. but he doesn't cue every time, or maybe i just don't see the cues every time... i tell myself that if i catch a poop a day i'm doing well, if i catch a pee i treat myself to a cocktail! Everyone's posts have been helpful (even the skeptical ones). One thing someone said about diapers being better... whatever works for your family is better. I would like to mention the reason diapers became so routine in the USA/Canada. back in the day people across the world practiced EC, even the victorians. But people (the uptight victorians) thought children should be on a strict schedule, so to get them to poop at a designated time people would use soap as a suppository to get the kids to go. some pediatricians thought this was bad for the child's psyche and was causing emotional problems later in life so they came out with studies showing that it was better to keep them in nappies until they could go on their own. initially nappies were only used until the child was about a year or so, but now with diaper companies trying to expand their market they've created a need for diapers until the ages of 2 or 3 and are going to the "uncivilized" countries to convince people (who have no means of disposing of diapers) that diapers are in fact better. i think that diapers are better than giving a baby a suppository. but the point of EC is to connect with your child, not to "get" your baby to do something. and yes, it pretty much is parent training. it's training us to listen to our babies. I do get peed and pooped on, and yes it sucks... but my incentive is this: the better I get a reading his signals, the fewer times i'll have to change my clothes. ps, my baby smiled for the first time yesterday, and it wasn't gas related! > ps, my baby smiled for the first time yesterday, and it wasn't gas > related! Feels so good, doesn't it? I know for a fact my baby smiled when she was 1 week old and it's not gas related either :) >> Child I saw would wave his left hand up and down in a very distinctive way >> when he needed to wee. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > poop a day i'm doing well, if i catch a pee i treat myself to a > cocktail! My mom said to watch his pen*s. You know when he needs to pee by watching it. She said boys are easier to "train" than girls because they're eaiser to spot. She considers it training when they will go on the toilet, not necessarily when they know they need to go. Anyway, she came from that same country where I saw the man holding the baby girl over the street to EC, so maybe she knows what she's talking about. > Myth one: Elimination communication means babies have accidents and you > need to be in a situation where cleanup is easy. WRONG. Babies > *communicate* their need to eliminate, and within a few months (maybe > sooner) can "hold it in" for several minutes or longer. (In the early > days a diaper might be wise, but don't expect it to get used a lot!) That's puzzling. I'm sure I read (on a pro-EC site) that accidents can occur up to 50% of the time. > Myth two: EC takes lots of time on the parent's part. WRONG. It just > means paying attention to your child, just as you do anyway. Instead of > grabbing the bottle or sitting down to nurse, you just take your baby to > the bathroom and undiaper, hold over toilet, then clean up after as > usual. Again, I find this puzzling, as I thought you had to watch the child for their signal. SignatureChookie -- Sydney, Australia (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply) "Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled." Kerry Cue > Rubbish. Hands up -- who's lost a child to cholera/typhoid/polio > recently? we haven't, but we have got a severe diaper rash on our hands and it could get worse as she seems to have cottoned on the the fact peeing hurts, so is holding on. I don't wish I could go back and do elimination communication, I know that wouldn't work in our family, but had we done it, the benefits would have been huge. Anne > > Rubbish. Hands up -- who's lost a child to cholera/typhoid/polio > > recently? > > we haven't, but we have got a severe diaper rash on our hands and it could > get worse as she seems to have cottoned on the the fact peeing hurts, so is > holding on. Poor kid! Do you think there is an infection present or is it dietary? The only rash I have seen on my two is heat-rash in the nappy region, and the redness you get from teething. IOW, nothing that cool weather and barrier cream won't cure. SignatureChookie -- Sydney, Australia (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply) "Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled." Kerry Cue >> I've had several friends who did it, were successful with it, and >> were very happy they'd done it. You do need to really pay attention to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I do wonder if it's feasible when you have more than one child. Person I knew did it for the second child, having not done it for the first. Debbie > > I do wonder if it's feasible when you have more than one child. > > > Person I knew did it for the second child, having not done it for the first. And the first one was TT'd by the time the second one arrived? SignatureChookie -- Sydney, Australia (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply) "Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled." Kerry Cue >> > I do wonder if it's feasible when you have more than one child. >> > >> Person I knew did it for the second child, having not done it for the >> first. > > And the first one was TT'd by the time the second one arrived? Can't remember. I know she/the family had a v. rough time between #1 and #2 and toilet training was something that #1 didn't do easily, probably due to family stresses. I suspect #1 was toilet trained on the basis that #1 was nearly 4yo when #2 arrived, but it was a close thing anyway. Debbie >> > I do wonder if it's feasible when you have more than one child. >> > >> Person I knew did it for the second child, having not done it for the first. > >And the first one was TT'd by the time the second one arrived? My mom didn't do this I don't think, but she did put me on the toilet at such times as she expected that I would need one even when I was tiny. I have pictures of me where I've unrolled the TP. She didn't recommend the 'natural' thing to me for my kids though. "Chookie" <ehrebeniuk@fowlspambegone.com.au> wrote in message > IME there's nothing natural about hygiene! > > I presume this is a euphemism for Elimination Communication? Can't > imagine > why anyone would waste time on it, but surely it's your business and your > carpet. I went to Florida this past January and we were shopping at the outlet mall. I saw a mom take her about 5 month old baby and was holding her up under the arms in the bushes so she could go to the bathroom. If that's natural, I don't want any part of it. It was disgusting. Sue > "Chookie" <ehrebeniuk@fowlspambegone.com.au> wrote in message >> IME there's nothing natural about hygiene! [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > arms in the bushes so she could go to the bathroom. If that's natural, I > don't want any part of it. It was disgusting. This is why something that would work in a third world country might not work here. Where EC is practice, it is easy and convenient to take the kid out to the street (I saw a dad do that with his baby on the sidewalk) or the bushes or wherever. Basically, the baby can eliminate pretty much anywhere the baby is, they just have to step out of the house. Also, the clothing is different. Where I observed it, the bottom was cut out of the baby's clothies. It was made that way. So the baby didn't wear diapers, but there was no clothing to stuggle to take off. Here, those things are not acceptable. You have to hunt for a toilet and the baby needs his/her bottom covered. >> "Chookie" <ehrebeniuk@fowlspambegone.com.au> wrote in message >>> IME there's nothing natural about hygiene! [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >baby's clothies. It was made that way. So the baby didn't wear diapers, >but there was no clothing to stuggle to take off. Here, those things are In the "good old days", the untrained child was in skirts. >not acceptable. You have to hunt for a toilet and the baby needs his/her >bottom covered. >>> "Chookie" <ehrebeniuk@fowlspambegone.com.au> wrote in message >>>> IME there's nothing natural about hygiene! [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > In the "good old days", the untrained child was in skirts. Even the boys? I try to stick Xavier in a long shirt. He will go pee all day on the potty but not poop.. he will ask for a diaper for that. Tori >>>> "Chookie" <ehrebeniuk@fowlspambegone.com.au> wrote in message >>>>> IME there's nothing natural about hygiene! [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Even the boys? I try to stick Xavier in a long shirt. He will go pee all > day on the potty but not poop.. he will ask for a diaper for that. Certainly. Babies and toddlers wore the same clothes I believe. Have you never read a book that refered to a baby boy wearing skirts? In "What Katie did" I think the youngest is refered to as wearing skirts. I don't know what age he was but he's certainly walking and talking fine. Debbie >> Even the boys? I try to stick Xavier in a long shirt. He will go pee all >> day on the potty but not poop.. he will ask for a diaper for that. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > age he was but he's certainly walking and talking fine. > Debbie Yes, but did they wear diapers or were they bare bottomed? In the place I saw cutoff bottoms, the babies were bare-bottomed. >>> Even the boys? I try to stick Xavier in a long shirt. He will go pee >>> all [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Yes, but did they wear diapers or were they bare bottomed? In the place I > saw cutoff bottoms, the babies were bare-bottomed. Don't know. I gave up history pre-GCSE! I can't imagine Susan Coolage being indelicate enough to mention bodily functions!!!! Debbie >> In the "good old days", the untrained child was in skirts. > > Even the boys? I try to stick Xavier in a long shirt. He > will go pee all day on the potty but not poop.. he will ask > for a diaper for that. yes, & it really wasn't that long ago. up until WWI (& in many rural areas, WWII) boys wore long gowns exactly the same as girls until age 3 or so. quite frequentlt their hair was left long until they were old enough to wear pants. ages 4-11, boys wore short pants, after 11 they wore long trousers. i dressed Boo in just a chemise (& diaper) for the Renaissance faire until he was 4. i was tempted to use it all the time because it really *is* so much easier to deal with both changing diapers & toiletting. dressing babies like miniature adults is hardest on the caregivers. lee >> > Even the boys? I try to stick Xavier in a long shirt. He > > will go pee all day on the potty but not poop.. he will ask [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > many rural areas, WWII) boys wore long gowns exactly the same > as girls until age 3 or so. Does anyone remember Anne in the Green Gables books crying when her son is "shortened"? That was the moment when they went from being babies to being little boys -- put into short pants. Some of you may have encountered the expression "when I was in short pants" in books. SignatureChookie -- Sydney, Australia (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply) "Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled." Kerry Cue >>> > Even the boys? I try to stick Xavier in a long shirt. He >> > will go pee all day on the potty but not poop.. he will ask [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >little boys -- put into short pants. Some of you may have encountered the >expression "when I was in short pants" in books. If you remember Cheaper By the Dozen (the 20s) there was a scene where the oldest boy gets long trousers (pants in the US). http://www.historyinthemaking.org/graphics%20new/cyclist.jpg Also when my dad went to college, he had only knickers (which in the US is trousers that are gathered at the knee, kind of like golf 'plus fours'. He didn't have long pants, so it was assumed (and also because he looked very young) that he was still in high school. This was in the 20s. >> In the "good old days", the untrained child was in skirts. > >Even the boys? I try to stick Xavier in a long shirt. He will go pee all >day on the potty but not poop.. he will ask for a diaper for that. Of course even the boys. http://p.vtourist.com/3300444-My_father_and_his_two_brothers_and_one_sister-Silv er_Cliff.jpg This is a picture taken in about 1911 of my dad and his two brothers and one sister. He is the second oldest brother. His older brother would have been about 10, he would have been 7, his sister would be 4 and his brother Harry would have been 2. >>> In the "good old days", the untrained child was in skirts. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > would have been about 10, he would have been 7, his sister would be 4 > and his brother Harry would have been 2. How adorable. Yes I could see that being easier to take care of. I know I had bonnie in those handy gowns almost exclusively until they stopped making them for her size.. I loved the kind with the drawstring on the bottom :P Xavier grew our of them faster and I never found any that looked boyish after the 0-3 month ones. I was just thinking how when I potty trained Bonnie I stuck her in a dress most days and I wished they had something like that for Xavier. All I could think of was Bonnies too big play shirts now. Tori > I went to Florida this past January and we were shopping at the outlet mall. > I saw a mom take her about 5 month old baby and was holding her up under the > arms in the bushes so she could go to the bathroom. If that's natural, I > don't want any part of it. It was disgusting. LOL, there was a bathroom in the bushes? :-) I'm sure I've read of a children's Bible where Saul goes to the bathroom in the cave! SignatureChookie -- Sydney, Australia (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply) "Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled." Kerry Cue >> I went to Florida this past January and we were shopping at the >> outlet mall. I saw a mom take her about 5 month old baby and was [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I'm sure I've read of a children's Bible where Saul goes to the > bathroom in the cave! That particular bit of dialect always makes me smile. We have three plumbed porcelain receptacles in various rooms of our house to handle body wastes but none of them is in the room that contains a bath tub. :) Tai >>> I went to Florida this past January and we were shopping at the >>> outlet mall. I saw a mom take her about 5 month old baby and was [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > handle body wastes but none of them is in the room that contains a > bath tub. :) Really? Two of our three are in rooms with tubs. In fact, in both of them have a door between the toilet and the sinks, but the tub is in the part with the toilet. Bizby > >> In article <mZudnXqYbP76w5_bnZ2dnUVZ_vShn...@wideopenwest.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > handle body wastes but none of them is in the room that contains a > > bath tub. :) When I lived in England I was pretty good at modifying my local language, but at a restaurant one evening I excused myself to use the 'bathroom' and everyone had fun taking the piss about how I was going to lounge in a bath in the middle of the meal....which then brought in 'restroom' which really cracked everyone up. Years on, and having lived in a number of other countries and with a number of non-Americans, I almost always say "toilet" now, which the Americans don't like. > Really? Two of our three are in rooms with tubs. In fact, in both of > them have a door between the toilet and the sinks, but the tub is in > the part with the toilet. In European homes (and some other places too...) it's common to have the toilet in a room separate from the bathtub. Makes it nice when one wants to take a long bath and the other needs to go. Of course, most American homes have more than one bathroom. >> >> In article <mZudnXqYbP76w5_bnZ2dnUVZ_vShn...@wideopenwest.com>, >> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > wants to take a long bath and the other needs to go. Of course, most > American homes have more than one bathroom. You can always go to "powder your nose". Debbie >>>>> In article <mZudnXqYbP76w5_bnZ2dnUVZ_vShn...@wideopenwest.com>, >>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> to lounge in a bath in the middle of the meal....which then brought >> in 'restroom' which really cracked everyone up. Those sorts of minor language differences can be hilarious, especially when they are over euphemisms. >> Years on, and having lived in a number of other countries and with a >> number of non-Americans, I almost always say "toilet" now, which the >> Americans don't like. I didn't know that! (I wonder why?) People usually say they need to use the toilet here in Australia, or in the case of my elderly aunt, she'd ask where the lavatory is in a more formal setting or announce she's going to the loo to her family. >>> Really? Two of our three are in rooms with tubs. In fact, in both >>> of them have a door between the toilet and the sinks, but the tub [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> one wants to take a long bath and the other needs to go. Of course, >> most American homes have more than one bathroom. We have one separate toilet (room) which is adjacent to the room which contains a bath tub, shower cubicle and basin unit and two shower/toilet/basin unit rooms. The other shower/toilet rooms were added over the years and the original layout of the house was for the practical reason you mention above. > You can always go to "powder your nose". Ha! (I'm trying to imagine my husband using that one...) Tai >> "cjra" <cjrohr31@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> Years on, and having lived in a number of other countries and with a >>> number of non-Americans, I almost always say "toilet" now, which the >>> Americans don't like. > > I didn't know that! (I wonder why?) In American it comes across as indelicate or coarse to some. Best wishes, Ericka >>> "cjra" <cjrohr31@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > In American it comes across as indelicate or coarse > to some. Oh, I see. Thanks, Erica! Tai >>>> "Tai" <tainuitidel...@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >the lavatory is in a more formal setting or announce she's going to the loo >to her family. The lavatory is technically the sink lav·a·to·ry (la-v'?-tôr'e-, -to-r'e-) Pronunciation Key n. pl. lav·a·to·ries 1375, "washbasin," from L. lavatorium "place for washing," noun use of neut. of adj. lavatorius "pertaining to washing," from lavatus, pp. of lavare "to wash" (see lave). Sense of "washroom" is first attested 1656... 1. A room equipped with washing and often toilet facilities; a bathroom. 2. A washbowl or basin, especially one permanently installed with running water. It has come to mean also the toilet. When we went to Europe for the first time, we learned to look for the W.C. signs (this was in 1950). >>>> Really? Two of our three are in rooms with tubs. In fact, in both >>>> of them have a door between the toilet and the sinks, but the tub [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >(I'm trying to imagine my husband using that one...) Most of the time men just say "I need to take a piss" or "I gotta go" something similar. They don't use the euphanisms as much. I was EXTREMELY amused when I was doing an inspection of a construction site at an electric company (they produced electricity), and I was at a table with 12 men explaining what citations were going to be issued to the construction company. Then I turned to the electric company people (the other 10 men), and said I was going to do an opening conference with them, and did they want the construction guys to stay. They said not, so the two guys left. I did the opening conference and then said I would do the closing conference. They stopped me and said that since they'd traveled a long way (all the way from Washington D.C. to Charles County MD) that they needed to use the bathroom, and all but one of them (who was the local guy assigned to guide me around) got up and left the room. After they had their conference (wherever they went), they came back and said they didn't think it was fair to do the opening and the closing conference the same day. I'd just never seen men going to the toilet in a group like they always say that women do and I thought it was a funny excuse. I guess they figured that I wouldn't follow them in there. . I did have a guest at my house once who refused to use the toilet to piss in. He insisted on going out in the yard. His excuse was that he was just an old farm boy. It made the yard smell. > >>>> "Tai" <tainuitidel...@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > When we went to Europe for the first time, we learned to look for the > W.C. signs (this was in 1950). Those signs are still commonly used. > >>>> Really? Two of our three are in rooms with tubs. In fact, in both > >>>> of them have a door between the toilet and the sinks, but the tub [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Most of the time men just say "I need to take a piss" or "I gotta go" > something similar. They don't use the euphanisms as much. Honestly, I have only very rarely heard men say "I need to take a piss" except in joking circumstances, and I'm very often treated like 'one of the guys' and have heard very coarse things, so it's not them being delicate around me because I'm a woman. In England "taking THE piss" means making fun of someone. I guess 'taking A piss" would mean what it does in the US, but I never heard that from any of the Englishmen of my acquaintance. >>>>> "Tai" <tainuitidel...@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message >>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > 1. A room equipped with washing and often toilet facilities; a > bathroom. She would be using the word in that sense and that is typical of someone of her age in New Zealand, where she lives. So it's very similar to the modern day US delicacy, really, just using a different term. > 2. A washbowl or basin, especially one permanently installed with > running water. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Most of the time men just say "I need to take a piss" or "I gotta go" > something similar. They don't use the euphanisms as much. My husband would say he needed to go to the toilet or to pee, or perhaps 'take a break' depending on the audience. "Taking *the* piss" means teasing someone in a joking sense, not necessarily in a pleasant way but it could be nastily or kindly meant. > I was EXTREMELY amused when I was doing an inspection of a > construction site at an electric company (they produced electricity), [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > like they always say that women do and I thought it was a funny > excuse. I guess they figured that I wouldn't follow them in there. LOL Were your ears burning? > . > I did have a guest at my house once who refused to use the toilet to > piss in. He insisted on going out in the yard. His excuse was that > he was just an old farm boy. It made the yard smell. Erk. Little boys are allowed to use the lemon tree if desperate but everyone else is expected to avail themselves of the plumbed facilties on our property. Tai >>>>>> "Tai" <tainuitidel...@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >her age in New Zealand, where she lives. So it's very similar to the modern >day US delicacy, really, just using a different term. Yes I know - I was totally surprised when I found out the lav was NOT the toilet. [I was reading the OSHA regulations, where they defined exactly what they meant by which term.] >> 2. A washbowl or basin, especially one permanently installed with >> running water. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >someone in a joking sense, not necessarily in a pleasant way but it could be >nastily or kindly meant. I guess that's the difference between US and English, but also because I don't really know what men would say because they don't usually say it to me. Actually most of the time (in my hearing) they just say they need to use the bathroom like the women do. I've never said that I needed to powder my nose, but we do have half baths (defined as a toilet and a sink with no actual bath or shower) here that are referred to as powder rooms. >> I was EXTREMELY amused when I was doing an inspection of a >> construction site at an electric company (they produced electricity), [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >Were your ears burning? LOL I was telling my sister about this last night - I told them I'd come back the following week and do the closing, and left, and then when I came back, I started out by saying that I'd been thinking some more about the case, and had some additional thoughts (by which I meant additional citations although I didn't say so directly). I asked my minder (the guy assigned to escort me around the facility) if he thought they got that point, and he said they did. I wasn't doing it to be mean or anything - I wasn't angry or annoyed. It was a technical issue, and I wasn't sure I could cite it until I contacted the regional supervisor. >> . >> I did have a guest at my house once who refused to use the toilet to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Little boys are allowed to use the lemon tree if desperate but everyone else >is expected to avail themselves of the plumbed facilties on our property. Right. He was a HUGE guy (6'8") and he had been invited to take a sail on our boat to see if he would fit inside, but he was really uncouth. > >>> "Tai" <tainuitidel...@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > I didn't know that! (I wonder why?) Apparently 'toilet' is considered a rude word. Friends were laughing about this recently at the home of two Kiwis in the US. They had a large party and the wife had put signs on everything, including the bathroom. The sign said "toilet' and everyone was teasing them about trying to offend the Americans. I have to often force myself to say 'bathroom', but I'm getting better. > Apparently 'toilet' is considered a rude word. I don't think it's so much considered rude as indelicate. For whatever reason, Americans seem to prefer euphemisms, especially when it comes to bodily functions. It's not even "toilet paper" anymore. It's "bathroom tissue." I *think* it has something to do with preferring to use a word that is not descriptive of what one is actually doing in there. So, the more removed the word is from the function, the more preferred it seems to be in polite company. Best wishes, Ericka > > Apparently 'toilet' is considered a rude word. > > I don't think it's so much considered rude > as indelicate. For whatever reason, Americans seem > to prefer euphemisms, especially when it comes to > bodily functions. Argh! That much is true. My mom and I went rounds (light hearted but semi serious) about her insisting on using euphemisms with DD while DH and I insisted on using the proper words. I can't actually remember the terms in question now, but it was driving me nuts at the time ;-) It's not even "toilet paper" > anymore. It's "bathroom tissue." I *think* it has > something to do with preferring to use a word that > is not descriptive of what one is actually doing in > there. So, the more removed the word is from the > function, the more preferred it seems to be in > polite company. It's funny, though, because honestly Americans aren't reknown for their politeness.... I'm not so crass, though. I think certain words are not polite to use, but I'm not bothered by 'toilet' any more than 'bath.' > It's not even "toilet paper" >> anymore. It's "bathroom tissue." I *think* it has [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > It's funny, though, because honestly Americans aren't reknown for > their politeness.... I don't really think it has anything to do with politeness, hence my response to the notion it was "rude." It isn't a rude or impolite word. If it was just rude, perhaps Americans would use it more ;-) There's no rule in US etiquette that says you shouldn't use the word "toilet." I suppose there is an etiquette concept that we don't officially take notice of other people's private bodily functions (or broadcast information about our own). Maybe it comes from taking that notion to extremes or something. Best wishes, Ericka >> > Apparently 'toilet' is considered a rude word. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the terms in question now, but it was driving me nuts at the time > ;-) :-) I remember when my sister was potty training and would ask her son if he needed to pee or poop. My mom was appalled and asked couldn't she use something less vulgar, and my sister said, "He's only 3, how is he going to know what I mean if I don't use the real words?" Lol -- like you're born with an innate understanding of what pee and poop mean! She could have called it tap dance and boogaloo and he would have learned it just fine! Bizby > :-) I remember when my sister was potty training and would ask her > son if he needed to pee or poop. My mom was appalled and asked [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > poop mean! She could have called it tap dance and boogaloo and he > would have learned it just fine! Yeah, but I think if they're learning to talk and you want them to learn to tell you quickly if they want to pee or poop, you want to use words they can say easily. "Pee" and "poop" are easy. "Tap dance" and "boogaloo" are not. Many other euphemisms are also more complicated and maybe not so easy for the kids to say. One syllable words are easiest. You also want the words to be something other adults can understand. >> :-) I remember when my sister was potty training and would ask her >> son if he needed to pee or poop. My mom was appalled and asked [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > the > words to be something other adults can understand. Oh, I know -- it was her reasoning I found funny. We actually used, "peet" and "poot" which were just different enough to make me feel comfortable, but still easily understood and pronounced. It's so silly to be so weirded out by those words, but I admit I'm weird that way. Bizby >> :-) I remember when my sister was potty training and would ask her >> son if he needed to pee or poop. My mom was appalled and asked [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > for the kids to say. One syllable words are easiest. You also want the > words to be something other adults can understand. We used "spending a penny" growing up. I've explained this to #1, who thinks it's funny, but I don't think most people nowadays would understand which is why my children go to "wee". Debbie > >> > Apparently 'toilet' is considered a rude word. > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > poop mean! She could have called it tap dance and boogaloo and he > would have learned it just fine! But no one else would have understood. Growing up we used 'boo' and 'tension'. Yes, TENSION. It makes us all laugh hysterically now, but that's what my mom insisted on. Why 'tension'? Apparently it was a family thing - her much older cousin was taught to say 'attention' to annouce she had to poop, but she couldn't say it properly, and it became 'tension' and that became the family word. Note none of my siblings use these terms with their kids. My mom was always aghast by the use of the Spanish term 'caca.' So she was shocked when she heard my french-speaking DH use the same term. For him, it's equivalent to poop. I also won't teach them silly words for their genitals. They can come up with whatever they want amongst their peers later, but they will grow up learning the proper terms. I agree some words are 'vulgar', but I don't think the proper terms can be considered vulgar. As regards bodily functions, the real proper terms 'urinate' and 'defecate' are a little too complex for little ones, so the standard english alternatives of pee and poop work well. >> >> > Apparently 'toilet' is considered a rude word. >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >annouce she had to poop, but she couldn't say it properly, and it >became 'tension' and that became the family word. I think I made up the words that my family used (which were trickle and grunt). I've never heard of anyone else who used them. And in school they said Number 1 and Number 2, which confused me at first because I didn't know that no one else used the words we used. >Note none of my siblings use these terms with their kids. > >My mom was always aghast by the use of the Spanish term 'caca.' So she >was shocked when she heard my french-speaking DH use the same term. >For him, it's equivalent to poop. My mom had lots of words that she thought were coarse. I can't remember a lot of them but a.s referring to the "rear end" was one. I still kind of wince when I use one of those expressions - she used to tap me on the top of the head with her thimble (she sewed a lot) when I would speak in a way she didn't like. >I also won't teach them silly words for their genitals. They can come >up with whatever they want amongst their peers later, but they will [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >'defecate' are a little too complex for little ones, so the standard >english alternatives of pee and poop work well. We did always use the correct anatomical terms for our body parts, as my dad was an anatomist and insisted on it. When my mom objected to a.s, we were instructed to call it the gluteus maximus. And I will never forget my dad holding my daughter up to the mirror and telling her to "get those old risorius muscles working" > My mom had lots of words that she thought were coarse. I can't > remember a lot of them but a.s referring to the "rear end" was one. I > still kind of wince when I use one of those expressions - she used to > tap me on the top of the head with her thimble (she sewed a lot) when > I would speak in a way she didn't like. Well, she was right about "a.s" -- isn't that generally considered quite vulgar, unless you're using it to mean donkey, i.e., silly person? I can't imagine anyone talking to a small child saying "Remember to wipe your a.s," for instance. I don't even let my kids say "butt" around me, but I'm pretty strict. (I don't think it's odd if other people's kids do, of course.) --Helen > I don't think it's so much considered rude > as indelicate. For whatever reason, Americans seem > to prefer euphemisms, especially when it comes to > bodily functions. But toilet IS a euphemism, with a meaning similar to lavatory and bathroom. Privy and closet are also euphemisms. The only term I can think of that isn't a euphemism or a jocularity (eg thunderbox) is $#!*house, and that's only used in idiomatic expressions. > It's not even "toilet paper"anymore. It's "bathroom tissue." I thought that was marketing-speak. Who here puts "bathroom tissue" on their shopping list? "Dunny paper"?! SignatureChookie -- Sydney, Australia (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply) "Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled." Kerry Cue >> I don't think it's so much considered rude >> as indelicate. For whatever reason, Americans seem [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > a euphemism or a jocularity (eg thunderbox) is $#!*house, and that's only used > in idiomatic expressions. Yes, it is a euphemism to some extent, but it's less so than some others, in American English. "Toilet" is also used as a verb meaning "to use the toilet" or "to assist someone in using the toilet," which makes it a little direct for some people's sensibilities. Best wishes, Ericka >>> I don't think it's so much considered rude >>> as indelicate. For whatever reason, Americans seem [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > "to assist someone in using the toilet," which makes > it a little direct for some people's sensibilities. I didn't know that! We might talk about "going to the toilet" to mean the action of using it. The "toilet", though, is always a noun, but can mean the room or the receptacle. SignaturePenny Gaines UK mum to three > Yes, it is a euphemism to some extent, but it's > less so than some others, in American English. "Toilet" > is also used as a verb meaning "to use the toilet" or > "to assist someone in using the toilet," which makes > it a little direct for some people's sensibilities. but that's only an extention of the meaning. toilet, as a verb, used to mean brushing one's hair, washing one's face, possibly applying makeup, as in 'a ladies toilet', her morning routine to get dressed. somewhere along in the 50s, i believe, it came to include the elimination functions. lee >> Yes, it is a euphemism to some extent, but it's >> less so than some others, in American English. "Toilet" [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > somewhere along in the 50s, i believe, it came to include the > elimination functions. Right, but the point is that *today*, many people seem to feel that "toilet" is uncomfortably close to the bodily functions themselves, and therefore seem to prefer a more indirect term. Best wishes, Ericka > In article <wZCdnZZbM4-MEJnbnZ2dnUVZ_vGin...@comcast.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I thought that was marketing-speak. Who here puts "bathroom tissue" on their > shopping list? "Dunny paper"?! hehe, I was at the grocery store today and I kept looking for the sign above the aisle that said "toilet paper" and couldn't find it. Then I finally noticed "Bathroom tissue." My brain was just not thinking 'bathroom tissue' but it made me think of this thread... "T.P." is commonly used. btw- what is it with IKEA selling stuff in the US and not making it to US norms?! In addition to our changing table, I've discovered that the toilet paper holder we bought doesn't fit typical US toilet paper! I thought initially it was just because we had an extra fluffy roll, but I went and got the more standard trimmed down roll and it's still too wide. DH said that's because European toilet paper is narrower but longer. I had never noticed! Now I'm going to bring some back from our next trip so I can compare. I think "toilet" sounds rude to people because it refers to the actual Thing You Put Your Bottom On, as opposed to "bathroom" which is more general and refers to an item not used for bodily functions. :) > btw- what is it with IKEA selling stuff in the US and not making it to > US norms?! In addition to our changing table, I've discovered that the > toilet paper holder we bought doesn't fit typical US toilet paper! OK, this is my pet peeve of the week. I bought a decorative wall shelf from Ikea a few days ago, and when DH went to install it, the brackets were not spaced US-stud-length away from each other. Not my idea of a safe thing, esp. in earthquake country... He had to do some fancy drywall engineering to get the stupid thing up securely. :P Em mama to Micah, 11/14/04 #2 due 4/27/07 >> I don't think it's so much considered rude >> as indelicate. For whatever reason, Americans seem [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > their > shopping list? "Dunny paper"?! Loo roll to us! Debbie >>>>> "Tai" <tainuitidel...@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > everything, including the bathroom. The sign said "toilet' and > everyone was teasing them about trying to offend the Americans. I can see me making the exact same mistake myself, but then I'm a Kiwi turned Aussie. As far as I can tell there's not a noticeable difference in the various ways Australians and Kiwis talk about this and I haven't been surprised by the terms our English relative use, either. > I have to often force myself to say 'bathroom', but I'm getting > better. I think it's something I'd feel forced to adopt pretty smartly if transplanted to the US, but some things are harder to deal with as they cause a kind of dissonance. For example, Australians often say "haitch" instead of "aitch" and "haitch" sounds dreadful to my ear. My children use both because they've heard one pronunciation from their father and I all their lives but a different one in their school environment and they aren't particularly wedded to either. Tai > I think it's something I'd feel forced to adopt pretty smartly if > transplanted to the US, but some things are harder to deal with as [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > their father and I all their lives but a different one in their > school environment and they aren't particularly wedded to either. Speaking of dissonances make that "their father and me". I'm sitting up in bed and typing through cold medication but they only explain the typos and not the thinkos! Tai > > Apparently 'toilet' is considered a rude word. > > Friends were laughing about this recently at the home of two Kiwis in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the various ways Australians and Kiwis talk about this and I haven't been > surprised by the terms our English relative use, either. Oh, she's lived in the US quite long enough to know Americans don't use the term much. Most of the group was a mixed international crowd, so they were all just teasing - as much about her use of signs on everything as about the word toilet (smart move though, she didn't have to direct everyone to it. > > I have to often force myself to say 'bathroom', but I'm getting > > better. > > I think it's something I'd feel forced to adopt pretty smartly if > transplanted to the US, but some things are harder to deal with as they > cause a kind of dissonance. Well, I'm American and currently living in the US, so I don't have an excuse. I've just spent enough years abroad and amongst non-Americans that certain words got ingrained in my head and it's hard to let go. I still say 'boot' (whereas the English ex had learned to say 'trunk'). DH's native tongue is not English, and he's always asking me to clarify if something is a British-ism or American-ism (and occasionaly Aussie-ism), and sometimes I get confused and can't remember. It's all jumbled up in my head. For example, Australians often say "haitch" > instead of "aitch" and "haitch" sounds dreadful to my ear. My children use > both because they've heard one pronunciation from their father and I all > their lives but a different one in their school environment and they aren't > particularly wedded to either. Ah, the Haitch! My english ex *hated* when he heard people use it (he had a very BBC English accent), but then our Irish friends did, and they just had this wonderful lilt it sounded lovely. But I could appreciate his annoyance when I'd heard it with a Manchester accent. It did grate on one's ears. >>> Apparently 'toilet' is considered a rude word. >>> Friends were laughing about this recently at the home of two Kiwis [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > everything as about the word toilet (smart move though, she didn't > have to direct everyone to it. Hee, putting up signs on the toilet or bathroom doors for large parties is something I see fairly often so the amusement value of that one floated right by me! >>> I have to often force myself to say 'bathroom', but I'm getting >>> better. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Aussie-ism), and sometimes I get confused and can't remember. It's all > jumbled up in my head. I have a similar problem with idiom and it leaves me tongue-tied sometimes when I start to use a phrase I suddenly realise no one else will understand. That often happens after I've travelled to visit my mother and become used to her mixture of Kiwi-isms and Scottish-isms then brought them all home again, fresh in my mind. > For example, Australians often say "haitch" >> instead of "aitch" and "haitch" sounds dreadful to my ear. My [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > appreciate his annoyance when I'd heard it with a Manchester accent. > It did grate on one's ears. The Irish were probably the vector for both the Manchester and the Australian infections but I suppose I can't really blame them if their lilt wasn't adopted along with the haitch. Tai > I have a similar problem with idiom and it leaves me tongue-tied sometimes > when I start to use a phrase I suddenly realise no one else will understand. > That often happens after I've travelled to visit my mother and become used > to her mixture of Kiwi-isms and Scottish-isms then brought them all home > again, fresh in my mind. Let me guess -- South Island? Though one of the thickest Scottish accents I've ever heard was in Auckland -- from a very elderly lady. We were on a family holiday and I was the only one who could work out what she was saying! SignatureChookie -- Sydney, Australia (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply) "Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled." Kerry Cue >> I have a similar problem with idiom and it leaves me tongue-tied >> sometimes when I start to use a phrase I suddenly realise no one [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Let me guess -- South Island? Good guess! But no, my mother and her parents and grandparents were originally from the Taranaki region in the North Island. That side of the family had some of the first settlers to NZ and they farmed near Mt Egmont/Taranaki rather than in the south of the South Island where many other Scots who presumably liked the colder latitude planted their roots. > Though one of the thickest Scottish accents I've ever heard was in > Auckland -- from a very elderly lady. We were on a family holiday > and I was the only one who could work out what she was saying! My mother sounds like a Kiwi she just has a lot of Scottish expressions and words, some of which I use. Like "wee" for small, for example! As well as for what that infant was probably doing when held over the bushes, of course. :) Tai "Tai" <tainuitidelete@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message For example, Australians often say "haitch" > instead of "aitch" and "haitch" sounds dreadful to my ear. My children > use both because they've heard one pronunciation from their father and I > all their lives but a different one in their school environment and they > aren't particularly wedded to either. Kiwi here ;) The other day watching Australian Sky news I was very surprised at the "haitch" pronunciation as I had always assumed that Aussies had the "h" sound the same as us Kiwi's. Has it always been pronounced that way or has it been picked up fairly recently? My DH is English and from the south west of the country where EVERYONE says "haitch" For the whole 9 years I lived there I never pronounced it the other way because it just sounds so darn silly to me. :) SignaturePip My girls : DD1 Jasmine - 5 weeks early - March 02 - 4lb 12oz Still as small as a peanut but as smart as a whip! DD2 Abby - 8 weeks early - Feb 05 - 3lb 14oz I'm two and what a Demon I can be!! "Yes you can drive me insane just by talking to me!" >"Tai" <tainuitidelete@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message >For example, Australians often say "haitch" [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >"haitch" For the whole 9 years I lived there I never pronounced it the >other way because it just sounds so darn silly to me. :) What are you talking about? Is this like the song in "My Fair Lady" where he's trying to teach her to pronounce the H "Hartford, Hereford, and Hampshire, hurricanes hardly happen"??? The only time I can think of when we in the US may not pronounce the H is in "herb" (the cooking ingredient and not the man's name when it is pronounced) And my daughter tells me that not pronouncing THAT H in the UK is considered affected. Or something. > What are you talking about? Is this like the song in "My Fair Lady" > where he's trying to teach her to pronounce the H "Hartford, Hereford, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > pronounced) And my daughter tells me that not pronouncing THAT H in > the UK is considered affected. Or something. If you were saying the letters of the alphabet and you got to the letter "H" if you lived in some parts of the UK or some parts of Australia you would pronounce that letter "haitch/haychh" whereas Kiwis and other English people say "aitch" (the normal way of saying that letter) that's what I was talking about and that I wasn't aware that anyone outside of England pronounced it "haitch" The American way of leaving off the h sound in herb is something else again. SignaturePip My girls : DD1 Jasmine - 5 weeks early - March 02 - 4lb 12oz Still as small as a peanut but as smart as a whip! DD2 Abby - 8 weeks early - Feb 05 - 3lb 14oz I'm two and what a Demon I can be!! "Yes you can drive me insane just by talking to me!" >> What are you talking about? Is this like the song in "My Fair >> Lady" [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > that letter) that's what I was talking about and that I wasn't aware > that anyone outside of England pronounced it "haitch" Ah, thanks, I was wondering too. We were on a train in Germany listening to two children practicing saying their English alphabet. They got through with just a couple of stumbles, and then at the end loudly proclaimed, "X, Y, and Zed!" In America we say "Zee." What do other parts of the English-speaking world say? Bizby > >> What are you talking about? Is this like the song in "My Fair > >> Lady" [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > loudly proclaimed, "X, Y, and Zed!" In America we say "Zee." What do > other parts of the English-speaking world say? Zed pretty much anywhere I've been outside the US. It's fun to see from whom people learned English as a second language - in Thailand for example, you get Thais with very British sounding English accents and words and then others with very American accents/ words. And then you'll be in the middle of nowhere have someone who has a southern drawl, or a very Scouse accent because they learned English from some backpacker who decided to hang around and teach in some rural village. >> >> What are you talking about? Is this like the song in "My Fair >> >> Lady" [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >Zed pretty much anywhere I've been outside the US. It is Zed in the Bahamas I know. >It's fun to see from whom people learned English as a second language >- in Thailand for example, you get Thais with very British sounding [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >English from some backpacker who decided to hang around and teach in >some rural village. What's a Scouse accent? We watch a lot of BBCA (BBC America). There are some accents that just set my teeth on edge, and some that I think are charming. I'm not sure why. [snip] > Ah, thanks, I was wondering too. We were on a train in Germany > listening to two children practicing saying their English alphabet. > They got through with just a couple of stumbles, and then at the end > loudly proclaimed, "X, Y, and Zed!" In America we say "Zee." What do > other parts of the English-speaking world say? In England, the letter is "zed". Unless your children have been wayching too many US TV programs, when you have to nag them to pronounce it correctly :-). SignaturePenny Gaines UK mum to three > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Unless your children have been wayching too many US TV programs, when > you have to nag them to pronounce it correctly :-). This brings to mind my annoyance with the publishers of Harry Potter books. The American versions are written in American English (and indeed the title of book 1 was changed) even tho the originals are in British English. The latter volumes are better about this, but still. Surely it's a good opportunity for American kids to learn that other parts of the English speaking world use different terms. It's a great learning experience! Are American books translated into British English? Drives me batty. I've been able to purchase the British versions until now....for the next volume we'll either have to order from amazon.uk and ship to the US or wait til we travel again. >> [snip] >> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > now....for the next volume we'll either have to order from amazon.uk > and ship to the US or wait til we travel again. Not having seen the British versions (indeed, not having known that two versions existed!) I don't know how much of an issue it is. But I will say that I was quite surprised at how much trouble my daughter had when she first started reading fantasy books. She was reading well above her grade level, and the books in question were (so I thought) well within her abilities. However, I think she was thrown for a loop by all the made up words. So for example, in the Pern books, it's easy enough to pick up on the fact that "klah" is a coffee-like drink. But I don't think she'd internalized that she wasn't supposed to know what these words were, and so she spent an inordinate amount of time trying to figure them out. It made the book slow going and difficult for her. She had similar troubles with books that used colloquial speech from olden times. So, as I said, I don't know how many differences there were, but given that the kids reading Harry Potter are often very young, the added difficulty of trying to figure out British expressions might just have been enough to make them too difficult. Bizby >>>[snip] >>> [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > Bizby I think the only reason I noticed it in Book 1 was that the kids used the word "Mom", which sounded really jarring in a British book. I don't know whether later books had fewer changes; I know "Mum" was used in at least some of the later books, and in flipping through the 3rd book, I noticed a reference to going to a sweetshop and buying sherbet balls - neither of which is American English. Clisby > I think the only reason I noticed it in Book 1 was that the kids > used the word "Mom", which sounded really jarring in a British book. > I don't know whether later books had fewer changes; I know "Mum" was > used in at least some of the later books, and in flipping through > the 3rd book, I noticed a reference to going to a sweetshop and > buying sherbet balls - neither of which is American English. Well, if that's all it is then I'm not sure why they bothered. Bizby >>I think the only reason I noticed it in Book 1 was that the kids >>used the word "Mom", which sounded really jarring in a British book. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Bizby It wasn't just changing "Mum" to "Mom" - it was things ilke changing "jumper" to "sweater" and "toilet" to "bathroom". I just don't remember that those seemed strange to me, whereas a British kid saying "Mom" sounds obviously odd (to me, at least.) Clisby >>> I think the only reason I noticed it in Book 1 was that the kids used >>> the word "Mom", which sounded really jarring in a British book. I [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > remember that those seemed strange to me, whereas a British kid saying > "Mom" sounds obviously odd (to me, at least.) I think in the British version of the books they used "bathroom": just checking I've found a reference to "Moaning Myrtle's bathroom". I don't think this ever jarred, because I always assumed that it was a room with several toilet cubicles and one or more cubicles with a bath in them. As I've occasionally come across rooms like that it seemed like a reasonable use of the term. Mom and Mum would seem odd, and an unnecessary change. I can understand the change with jumper and sweater, which are used interchangeably over here. SignaturePenny Gaines UK mum to three >>>> I think the only reason I noticed it in Book 1 was that the kids >>>> used the word "Mom", which sounded really jarring in a British book. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > the change with jumper and sweater, which are used interchangeably over > here. Here's one article about the changes - I'm not vouching for any of these, since I don't have the British editions to compare. http://www.uta.fi/FAST/US1/REF/potter.html Clisby >>> It wasn't just changing "Mum" to "Mom" - it was things ilke changing >>> "jumper" to "sweater" and "toilet" to "bathroom". I just don't >>> remember that those seemed strange to me, whereas a British kid saying >>> "Mom" sounds obviously odd (to me, at least.) >> Mom and Mum would seem odd, and an unnecessary change. I can understand >> the change with jumper and sweater, which are used interchangeably over >> here. The use of jumper for a sweater seems quite odd to me although I know what it means now. But a jumper means something quite different in the US. >Here's one article about the changes - I'm not vouching for any of >these, since I don't have the British editions to compare. > >http://www.uta.fi/FAST/US1/REF/potter.html Some of these are pretty intuitive and some I'm not sure of myself. And if you assumed the US usage it might indeed make a difference, especially if we DO have a different usage for the word A roundabout for instance is a type of road construction, and not an amusement park ride (carousel) What the heck is a bobble hat? And come to that, what is a bonnet which is suppose to be the US usage? and what is a puff ball that is supposed to be the US usage for bobble. In some cases I don't understand the American English term either. These are the ones I'd consider being the greatest problem. 52 notes bills 52 set books course books Would we not say text books, or is that not the same thing? 53 hamburger bars hamburger restaurants I would just say 'fast food' or hamburger joint 54 gummy toothless 61 football soccer Although with the series Football Players wives, we should know this. 68 trolley cart 78 bogey-flavoured booger-flavored Really? 83 trainers sneakers 122 pitch field 124 rounders baseball I don't think rounders is really the same as baseball. And I thought a pitch was for cricket. Why change it? 127 jacket potato baked potato 135 nobbled clobbered 140 crumpets English muffins 167 revision timetables study schedules 168 One Hundred One Thousand 219 barking off his rocker >>>> It wasn't just changing "Mum" to "Mom" - it was things ilke >>>> changing [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > What the heck is a bobble hat? And come to that, what is a bonnet > which is suppose to be the US usage? I've always thought of a bonnet as a hat tied on, like a baby bonnet. A "bobble hat" sounds rather comic! > and what is a puff ball that is > supposed to be the US usage for bobble. In some cases I don't > understand the American English term either. Yeah, I noticed that too! > These are the ones I'd consider being the greatest problem. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Although with the series Football Players wives, we should know > this. Most American adults know that soccer is called football elsewhere in the world, but I don't know that kids do. > 68 trolley cart > 78 bogey-flavoured booger-flavored [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > a > pitch was for cricket. Why change it? Well, apparently they changed cricket to baseball all around as a sport Americans are more aware of. > 127 jacket potato baked potato > 135 nobbled clobbered > 140 crumpets English muffins > 167 revision timetables study schedules > 168 One Hundred One Thousand One hundred and one thousand mean the same things on both sides of the pond, don't they? Does anyone know the context of this change? > 219 barking off his rocker Bizby >>>>>It wasn't just changing "Mum" to "Mom" - it was things ilke >>>>>changing [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Yeah, I noticed that too! In the book, the context is describing "a revolting old sweater of Dudley's (brown with orange puff balls)". All I can think of is what I would call pom-poms. >>These are the ones I'd consider being the greatest problem. >> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > One hundred and one thousand mean the same things on both sides of the > pond, don't they? Does anyone know the context of this change? I do, but the change makes no sense. In my American edition, it refers to the book "One Thousand Magical Herbs and Fungi." If this website is correct, the British edition talks about "One Hundred Magical Herbs and Fungi." Clisby >>219 barking off his rocker > > Bizby >>>>>>It wasn't just changing "Mum" to "Mom" - it was things ilke changing >>>>>>"jumper" to "sweater" and "toilet" to "bathroom". I just don't [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > Dudley's (brown with orange puff balls)". All I can think of is what I > would call pom-poms. That's right. Bobbles are pompoms. Debbie > In the book, the context is describing "a revolting old sweater of > Dudley's (brown with orange puff balls)". All I can think of is > what I would call pom-poms. Ah! (lightbulb goes on) >> One hundred and one thousand mean the same things on both sides of >> the pond, don't they? Does anyone know the context of this change? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > website is correct, the British edition talks about "One Hundred > Magical Herbs and Fungi." Lol -- someone decided that only a hundred didn't sound all that impressive! Bizby > >>> It wasn't just changing "Mum" to "Mom" - it was things ilke changing > >>> "jumper" to "sweater" and "toilet" to "bathroom". I just don't [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > A roundabout for instance is a type of road construction, and not an > amusement park ride (carousel) A roundabout is a type of road construction in England as well. > What the heck is a bobble hat? And come to that, what is a bonnet > which is suppose to be the US usage? and what is a puff ball that is [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > I don't think rounders is really the same as baseball. And I thought a > pitch was for cricket. Why change it? A pitch is any kind of playing field : football pitch, rugby pitch > 127 jacket potato baked potato > 135 nobbled clobbered > 140 crumpets English muffins > 167 revision timetables study schedules > 168 One Hundred One Thousand > 219 barking off his rocker See, while I agree most American kids wouldn't know these terms immediately, I think that's part of the fun of reading! Reading to me is exploring a world I don't already know. I think kids should be encouraged to learn something new when they read. I understand the publisher's intentions, it's about money, but its also making the decision that Americans aren't willing to learn, when in fact, many are. On the HP translations: One thing to keep in mind-Scholastic, as a publisher, has a definite goal of making reluctant readers want to read and encouraging free reading, even if it's at the cost of quality. As a result, they publish a lot of TV-tie in books, series books, and similar things. HP is kind of a bridge. It's a series book, but it's one which requires a higher reading level and more effort than "Goosebumps", "Babysitters Club", and similar books of that ilk. While many of the children (and adults) who read HP are well above that reading level, a lot of children who are reading it and becoming interested in the books are NOT. For many struggling readers, HP is the first true novel that they've tried to read independently. As a result, I understand exactly why Scholastic made the changes they made. It's not for the person who can easily read the book in American or British English, but to try to pull the child who otherwise wouldn't be able to read HP and enjoy it from getting bogged down in the words to the point of losing the story and the focus on the book. If you read the full series in both editions, there are fewer changes in each book. And that makes sense too, since the reading level of each book gets harder and the intended goal of the author is that the children reading will age with the protagonists (6 and 7 yr olds are NOT supposed to be reading "Goblet of Fire" or later. The children who are the intended audience are old enough to handle the plotline easily). They may have gone overboard with "Sorcerer's Stone" (just in the title alone!), but it's not because of a devaluing of the whole American public-it's because of an awareness of Scholastic's intended market-which is children who otherwise won't make an effort to find a book and just plain read. >> >>> It wasn't just changing "Mum" to "Mom" - it was things ilke changing >> >>> "jumper" to "sweater" and "toilet" to "bathroom". I just don't [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >> supposed to be the US usage for bobble. In some cases I don't >> understand the American English term either. Bobble hat is a (often hand) knitted hat. They can have a bobble (ball made out of wool approximately) on top-looks a little like Father Christmas' hat is probably the quickest example I can think of. In UK a bonnet would be worn by a baby! >> These are the ones I'd consider being the greatest problem. >> >> 52 notes bills >> 52 set books course books >> Would we not say text books, or is that not the same thing? UK would say text books too. To me "set books" implies that it is up to the pupil to get the book (ie if they can't afford/can't be bothered they can do without) and text books would be provided by the school, but it's really the same thing. >> 53 hamburger bars hamburger restaurants >> I would just say 'fast food' or hamburger joint [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> 78 bogey-flavoured booger-flavored >> Really? Yes. >> 83 trainers sneakers >> 122 pitch field [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > A pitch is any kind of playing field : football pitch, rugby pitch You wouldn't say "cricket pitch" usually would you? It would be "field" or "cricket grounds", assuming they didn't mean the "square". My favourite footnote comes in "The emperors new mind" by Roger Penrose (a maths interest book) where after mentioning cricket there is a footnote that says approximately: "Our American readers should substitute for cricket: "A quaint English form of baseball." I seem to remember it elaborates a bit further, but I can't find my book at the moment. >> 127 jacket potato baked potato >> 135 nobbled clobbered >> 140 crumpets English muffins Well that's wrong. Crumpets are not muffins. Muffins are bread, crumpets look like sponges, if that helps anyone. When dh was involved in a production of "Importance of being Earnest" they asked an American student to buy the food props for it, which included muffins. There was much hilarity (and a rapid shopping expedition) when she returned with a packet of chocolate (American) muffins. I believe she thought the English were strange to butter them in the script... >> 167 revision timetables study schedules >> 168 One Hundred One Thousand Now I know Americans like to be bigger ;-P but that strikes me as silly... >> 219 barking off his rocker Would use either in UK. > See, while I agree most American kids wouldn't know these terms > immediately, I think that's part of the fun of reading! Reading to me > is exploring a world I don't already know. I think kids should be > encouraged to learn something new when they read. I can't think of any American book I've read (in UK) which has been altered into English, except possibly cookery books. I'm sure there are a few out there, but to me it just adds to the setting in a book. Some books wouldn't flow right. However there are some books that it probably wouldn't matter where they were set, so maybe they have been some that I haven't realised. Debbie Ps I've just thought of one of #2's books that the spelling "of colour has been corrected, and I think it was originally published in USA. However at that level it would cause confusion. On Mar 26, 8:40 am, "Welches" <debbie.welc...@SPAMntlworldPLEASE.com> wrote: > >> >>> It wasn't just changing "Mum" to "Mom" - it was things ilke changing > >> >>> "jumper" to "sweater" and "toilet" to "bathroom". I just don't [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > You wouldn't say "cricket pitch" usually would you? It would be "field" or > "cricket grounds", assuming they didn't mean the "square". Ah yes, I'm not a cricket fan ;-) "grounds" does seem to match better. > My favourite footnote comes in "The emperors new mind" by Roger Penrose (a > maths interest book) where after mentioning cricket there is a footnote that [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Well that's wrong. Crumpets are not muffins. Muffins are bread, crumpets > look like sponges, if that helps anyone. "English muffins" do look a little more like crumpets than the typical sweet muffins, in that they have little holes and are more savory than sweet. You usually cut them in half, toast and butter them. But crumpets just have a totally different texture. They are close enough in theory that the translation here makes sense, I just argue it's not necessary. > When dh was involved in a production of "Importance of being Earnest" they > asked an American student to buy the food props for it, which included [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Would use either in UK. We don't use 'barking' in the US though. Still, like elsewhere, I think most kids would figure it out from context. > > See, while I agree most American kids wouldn't know these terms > > immediately, I think that's part of the fun of reading! Reading to me [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > been corrected, and I think it was originally published in USA. However at > that level it would cause confusion.- Hide quoted text - Spelling issues I can accept, as I think it's important to learn to spell properly and it'd just get confusing. (My spelling is poor these days, but improving, because I tended to mix British and American spellings a lot) > >> 124 rounders baseball > >> I don't think rounders is really the same as baseball. And I thought a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You wouldn't say "cricket pitch" usually would you? It would be "field" or > "cricket grounds", assuming they didn't mean the "square". Of course you call it a cricket pitch. Even I know that, and I can't play it! But the pitch isn't the entire playing field; it's the strip between the wickets, ie, where the ball is bowled (it is not pitched!). SignatureChookie -- Sydney, Australia (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply) "Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled." Kerry Cue >> >> 124 rounders baseball >> >> I don't think rounders is really the same as baseball. And I thought a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > But the pitch isn't the entire playing field; it's the strip between the > wickets, ie, where the ball is bowled (it is not pitched!). No that's the "cricket square" (yes it isn't square but rectangular, but come to that I don't believe the "Oval" is oval in shape either (it's a cricket ground).) I don't play cricket either. (except French cricket on the beach which the children like) Debbie >>> >> 124 rounders baseball >>> >> I don't think rounders is really the same as baseball. And I thought [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > children like) > Debbie The strip between the wickets is called the wicket. The whole ground is a pitch, and the cricket square is an area that encompasses the wicket plus ground either side of the wicket that will be used as future wickets.(For example he length of the current wicket but another 3 wickets wide in total. Wow how many times can one fit the word wicket into a paragraph :):):) SignaturePip My girls : DD1 Jasmine - 5 weeks early - March 02 - 4lb 12oz Still as small as a peanut but as smart as a whip! DD2 Abby - 8 weeks early - Feb 05 - 3lb 14oz I'm two and what a Demon I can be!! "Yes you can drive me insane just by talking to me!" > >>> > A pitch is any kind of playing field : football pitch, rugby pitch > >>> > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > ground either side of the wicket that will be used as future wickets.(For > example he length of the current wicket but another 3 wickets wide in total. I refer you all to Wikipedia... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cricket_pitch SignatureChookie -- Sydney, Australia (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply) "Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled." Kerry Cue >>>>It wasn't just changing "Mum" to "Mom" - it was things ilke changing >>>>"jumper" to "sweater" and "toilet" to "bathroom". I just don't [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > supposed to be the US usage for bobble. In some cases I don't > understand the American English term either. Since inquiring minds (maybe even enquiring minds) want to know - it's referring to a baby bonnet. You know, those silly-looking hats inflicted on infants. My grandmothers called them bonnets, but I don't think I've heard an American use that term in years. > These are the ones I'd consider being the greatest problem. > > 52 notes bills > 52 set books course books > Would we not say text books, or is that not the same thing? I would say textbooks. > 53 hamburger bars hamburger restaurants > I would just say 'fast food' or hamburger joint [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 78 bogey-flavoured booger-flavored > Really? I wondered about that one, too. OK, Penny, we need input here. What does 'bogey' mean in British English? Here, the first thing that comes to my mind is a scary appartion/goblin/monster type creature. Or one stroke over par in golf - but I'm sure that's irrelevant to Harry Potter. > 83 trainers sneakers > 122 pitch field [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 135 nobbled clobbered > 140 crumpets English muffins I didn't think crumpets and English muffins were the same thing, but maybe I'm wrong. Clisby > 167 revision timetables study schedules > 168 One Hundred One Thousand > 219 barking off his rocker > >>>>It wasn't just changing "Mum" to "Mom" - it was things ilke changing > >>>>"jumper" to "sweater" and "toilet" to "bathroom". I just don't [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > stroke over par in golf - but I'm sure that's irrelevant to Harry > Potter. In the UK, a bogey = American booger, the green stuff in your nose. > > 83 trainers sneakers > > 122 pitch field [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I didn't think crumpets and English muffins were the same thing, but > maybe I'm wrong. English muffins are distinctly American. They are similar to crumpets, but not the same thing. >> What the heck is a bobble hat? And come to that, what is a bonnet >> which is suppose to be the US usage? and what is a puff ball that is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > inflicted on infants. My grandmothers called them bonnets, but I don't > think I've heard an American use that term in years. I think the only reason you don't hear the term often is that bonnets aren't much in use to talk about ;-) There are plenty of baby hats, but few baby bonnets. Bonnets for adults went out several generations ago and don't seem to have made a reappearance. So, realistically, it's not a term you hear much outside of historical novels or the occasional pampered baby's baptismal ensemble. It seems like most people are familiar with the term, though, even if they don't use it much. Best wishes, Ericka >>> What the heck is a bobble hat? And come to that, what is a bonnet >>> which is suppose to be the US usage? and what is a puff ball that is [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >ensemble. It seems like most people are familiar with the >term, though, even if they don't use it much. When I think of a bonnet, I think of what Amish women wear. > > 78 bogey-flavoured booger-flavored > > Really? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > stroke over par in golf - but I'm sure that's irrelevant to Harry > Potter. LOL, it's a booger here too (short oo), but I had no difficulty working out 'bogey' from context. I am sure JKR is quite well aware of bogey as in scary creature, but that isn't what she meant there! > > 140 crumpets English muffins > > I didn't think crumpets and English muffins were the same thing, but > maybe I'm wrong. They aren't, but you people don't have crumpets at all, do you? http://www.warburtons.co.uk/our_products/snacks/bakery_snacks.html#crumpets SignatureChookie -- Sydney, Australia (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply) "Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled." Kerry Cue > Here's one article about the changes - I'm not vouching for any of > these, since I don't have the British editions to compare. > > http://www.uta.fi/FAST/US1/REF/potter.html Hey, thanks for the link! Looking over the list, there are a lot of things that fall into the "Why did they bother?" category, like sweets into candy, motorway into highway, and mum into mom. On the other hand, there are some British expressions that I think would have had me stumped even as an adult, like nobbled, comprehensive (means public school?!), and the baker's opposite. I probably would have glossed over most of them not even realizing that they didn't mean what I thought though, and I doubt it would have hurt the flow of the story. For example, I'd have thought "bogey-flavoured" meant that it tasted like a slimy monster, and I guess that's close enough! I could see some of them really making my kids stumble though. Bizby >>>> I think the only reason I noticed it in Book 1 was that the kids used >>>> the word "Mom", which sounded really jarring in a British book. I don't [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > the change with jumper and sweater, which are used interchangeably over > here. And I would think of a Jumper as a dress that you would wear a shirt under. I would not have thought of it as a sweater. I supose if Harry put on a Jumper that would have seemed odd to me. Tori >>Mom and Mum would seem odd, and an unnecessary change. I can understand >>the change with jumper and sweater, which are used interchangeably over >>here. > > And I would think of a Jumper as a dress that you would wear a shirt under. That would be a pinafore or tunic in my world. >>>Mom and Mum would seem odd, and an unnecessary change. I can understand >>>the change with jumper and sweater, which are used interchangeably over [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >That would be a pinafore or tunic in my world. A pinafore would be what we call and apron (something to wear over the dress when cooking or the little white frilly thing that a French maid would wear over her black uniform dress), and a tunic would be something like a Mao jacket. > >>>Mom and Mum would seem odd, and an unnecessary change. I can understand > >>>the change with jumper and sweater, which are used interchangeably over [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > would wear over her black uniform dress), and a tunic would be > something like a Mao jacket. The one which confused me in a British school novel was "Gymslip"-which I guess is something like the jumpers that Catholic schools have as part of their uniform, based on context? To me, a slip is something you wear under a skirt or dress, either because it's thin enough that light shows through or because it's of an itchy fabric or a fabric which needs protecting from skin oils, and gym clothes are shorts and t-shirts in school colors, which no one wants to wear. I recall the girl in the book being very excited about finding this article of clothing at a uniform supplier because it was "the perfect outfit for the new head girl". For that matter, the whole head girl/head boy, prefect system where apparently children have control over other children was very foreign to my experience (the only situation I dealt with that sort of hierarchy in school in was Band where we had section leaders and Drum majors). >> >>>Mom and Mum would seem odd, and an unnecessary change. I can > understand [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > school > in was Band where we had section leaders and Drum majors). Gym slip is a specific form of pinafore that was typically worn to school (as uniform) until about the 60s. It has a square neckline with a very short bodice section, and then three box pleats from the bodice. It was tied at the waist with a "girdle" (like a pyjama cord or a thin strip of material). I'm making one for #1 to wear to school at the moment as it is easy to slip on over the head. To be honest by the time I got to school the prefect system was a way of saving on the teachers! Yes, the prefects could give lines and detentions, but didn't often. But they do things like noting down late comers at the beginning of the day, lunch duty, wet play time supervision and organising charity events and things. Debbie > And I would think of a Jumper as a dress that you would wear a shirt under. > I would not have thought of it as a sweater. I supose if Harry put on a > Jumper that would have seemed odd to me. I was puzzled for years by Ma buying brown denim to make a *jumper* for Pa! Only worked out as an adult that LIW must have meant overalls. The thing you call a jumper is a pinafore here, and the equivalent with trouser legs is a pair of overalls. SignatureChookie -- Sydney, Australia (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply) "Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled." Kerry Cue > >>I think the only reason I noticed it in Book 1 was that the kids > >>used the word "Mom", which sounded really jarring in a British book. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > remember that those seemed strange to me, whereas a British kid saying > "Mom" sounds obviously odd (to me, at least.) The jumper vs. sweater one is what stands out most vividly in my mind (oddly, my veddy veddy English ex called his mom 'mom', which was weird ;-)). There's also the title of the first one - Philosopher's Stone in England and Sorcerer's Stone in America. I can't think of all the other things off the top of my head right now. It just bothers me because I think it's suggesting American kids are either not capable of understanding - or at least asking what they don't understand (many adults don't know, and just ask) - or not *willing* to learn a little bit about how other parts of the world use English. >> >>I think the only reason I noticed it in Book 1 was that the kids >> >>used the word "Mom", which sounded really jarring in a British book. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >*willing* to learn a little bit about how other parts of the world use >English. I read quite a few books that are set in England or Australia or NZ. I eventually figured out jumper and cooker and trainer, but it took me awhile. Who would I have asked?? If I didn't know the answer, and my kids asked me, what would I say? Because jumper and trainer HAVE meanings here, and cooker too if you think pressure cooker. And why ask about it if you think you know? What I would object to (if I was going to object) was what seems to me to be a completely bollixed up translations. > >> >>I think the only reason I noticed it in Book 1 was that the kids > >> >>used the word "Mom", which sounded really jarring in a British book. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Because jumper and trainer HAVE meanings here, and cooker too if you > think pressure cooker. And why ask about it if you think you know? Nearly all of it can be figured out in context, with a bit more reading. A number of things don't really alter the story if you *don't* know. And if the kid is motivated to find out, how about a trip to the library to check out a book on British terms, or an online version? Ask a teacher? Ask friends? Read more? There's a heck of a lot in HP that is not real, plenty of made up words that no kid would understand. They figure it out eventually as they're reading the story. It's all part of learning, IMO. > >> >>I think the only reason I noticed it in Book 1 was that the kids > >> >>used the word "Mom", which sounded really jarring in a British book. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > eventually figured out jumper and cooker and trainer, but it took me > awhile. Who would I have asked?? Upon further thought - do kids not do pen pals anymore? This would be a great opportunity for a class of kids who didn't understand the terms in a book, knowing it was written in England, to find a school in England that could become their pen pals and ask such questions. What a great way to share and learn about other cultures, for both sides (although the British kids already get a lot from having American TV) > >> [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > slow going and difficult for her. She had similar troubles with books > that used colloquial speech from olden times. Is it a bad thing that a book is challenging? I remember as a kid reading books using old English and not understanding words, but that's all part of the learning process. > So, as I said, I don't know how many differences there were, but given > that the kids reading Harry Potter are often very young, the added > difficulty of trying to figure out British expressions might just have > been enough to make them too difficult. But how often are American kids' books translated? I think it's a great way for kids to learn how others speak. There are already a lot of made up words in Harry Potter, so learning new words doesn't seem to be too challenging given how popular the books are. I don't think there have been two versions of the movies, but the movie Pride and Prejudice (recently made version) was produced in an American version and a British version, with the American ending being, IMO, really stupid and completely losing track of the nature of Jane Austen's writing. While movies often do this, it was annoying that the British version stayed true, but producers clearly didn't think the American audience could handle the subtlety. I think we're missing out on a great opportunity by translating texts from British to American English. That's all part of the fun of learning how the world is different from our own micro-culture. > Is it a bad thing that a book is challenging? I remember as a kid > reading books using old English and not understanding words, but > that's all part of the learning process. It is if the child ends up not being able to read it because it is too challenging. > I think it's a great way for kids to learn how others speak. There are > already a lot of made up words in Harry Potter, so learning new words > doesn't seem to be too challenging given how popular the books are. Bizby said figuring out the made up words was hard enough. It would be even harder to figure out British English and the made up words together. Of course, not all children would have this problem, but maybe enough to make a difference. > Bizby said figuring out the made up words was hard enough. It would be > even harder to figure out British English and the made up words together. > Of course, not all children would have this problem, but maybe enough to > make a difference. Australian English is also at least one separate dialect, yet we got the unadulterated British versions. SignatureChookie -- Sydney, Australia (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply) "Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled." Kerry Cue > Is it a bad thing that a book is challenging? I remember as a kid > reading books using old English and not understanding words, but > that's all part of the learning process. Again, I'm only speaking of my experience with my daughter. If she had to struggle too much with the words, she didn't enjoy the book. It's like with younger kids -- when they're sounding out reading word by word, they can't get the flow of the story. Two other books I remember her having problems with were "Rodzina" and "A Long Way from Chicago", though in those the problem was the dialogue. And of course, if she didn't enjoy the book, she might not even finish it, much less want to read increasingly long sequels. On the other hand, she *didn't* like Harry Potter at all. I read the first one with her in the third grade, but she was very uninterested, so we never got another. My son has never read them or had any read to him, and I think perhaps they saw the first movie but that was it. I've read all of them, but we're really not a Harry Potter family. >> So, as I said, I don't know how many differences there were, but >> given [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > But how often are American kids' books translated? I'm not sure how this is relevant? Do you think this is an Ugly American thing? I would assume that it was a decision made by the publishers, driven by their desire for more money. > I think it's a great way for kids to learn how others speak. There > are > already a lot of made up words in Harry Potter, so learning new > words > doesn't seem to be too challenging given how popular the books are. If the changes were as minor as Clisby suggested, it hardly seems worth it to me. > I don't think there have been two versions of the movies, but the > movie Pride and Prejudice (recently made version) was produced in an [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that the British version stayed true, but producers clearly didn't > think the American audience could handle the subtlety. Okay, I get that this is a peeve of yours. I get peeved too when they change great books, or even real life! for the sake of the movie. I'm less bothered by American remakes of foreign movies in general though. > I think we're missing out on a great opportunity by translating > texts > from British to American English. That's all part of the fun of > learning how the world is different from our own micro-culture. I wonder how often this happens? Harry Potter, after all, is more of a pop sensation than great literature. If the overall expected sales were much lower, it doesn't seem like it would make sense to do it. Bizby >>Is it a bad thing that a book is challenging? I remember as a kid >>reading books using old English and not understanding words, but [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > If the changes were as minor as Clisby suggested, it hardly seems > worth it to me. I don't really know if there were major changes; someone from Britain who read the American version could more accurately assess that. Since most of the American expressions wouldn't have struck me as odd, I could have missed a lot. I do think it was silly to change "Mum" to "Mom" - surely an American child old enough to understand the story could deduce what "Mum" means. Clisby >>I don't think there have been two versions of the movies, but the >>movie Pride and Prejudice (recently made version) was produced in an [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Bizby >> >> [snip] >> [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > that the British version stayed true, but producers clearly didn't > think the American audience could handle the subtlety. It still bugs me that the most recent movie version of Les Miserables ended too happy. Not that I like seeing Jean ValJean die but that is what is SUPOSED to happen. I dont know why movie makers like to take these movies that you are just waiting for the "book" ending and they just totaly change it. I had my tissues ready and everything. Tori > >> "cjra" <cjroh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > that you are just waiting for the "book" ending and they just totaly change > it. I had my tissues ready and everything. And Javert not commit suicide. It totally changed the mood of the story, IMO. It went from a deep intense, involved reflection of a difficult time to treacle. Then again I was also annoyed with Fever Pitch twice - first being made into a love story in the UK version, and then a baseball story in the US version. > And Javert not commit suicide. It totally changed the mood of the > story, IMO. It went from a deep intense, involved reflection of a > difficult time to treacle. Then again I was also annoyed with Fever > Pitch twice - first being made into a love story in the UK version, > and then a baseball story in the US version. They Messed up the horse whisperer the same way. Though I must admit I missed the part about Javert. Tori > This brings to mind my annoyance with the publishers of Harry Potter > books. The American versions are written in American English (and > indeed the title of book 1 was changed) even tho the originals are in > British English. The latter volumes are better about this, but still. > Surely it's a good opportunity for American kids to learn that other > parts of the English speaking world use different terms. And it's hardly flattering of the publishers to assume that American children are ignorant of the Philosopher's Stone and incapable of finding out what it is -- but what other reason could there be? SignatureChookie -- Sydney, Australia (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply) "Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled." Kerry Cue >>What are you talking about? Is this like the song in "My Fair Lady" >>where he's trying to teach her to pronounce the H "Hartford, Hereford, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > pronounce that letter "haitch/haychh" whereas Kiwis and other English people > say "aitch" (the normal way of saying that letter) ^^^^^^ Your normal maybe. My normal is haitch. > that's what I was talking > about and that I wasn't aware that anyone outside of England pronounced it > "haitch" I'm Irish, we say haitch. > The American way of leaving off the h sound in herb is something > else again. Very annoying imo, I'm Irish living in the US and used to live in the UK, I get terribly confused linguistically. >>"Tai" <tainuitidelete@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message >>For example, Australians often say "haitch" [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > pronounced) And my daughter tells me that not pronouncing THAT H in > the UK is considered affected. Or something. I think what Pip means is that if her DH was asked what was the first letter in "hardly", he would say "haitch". I was brought up (in the SE of England) to say "haitch". SignaturePenny Gaines UK mum to three > "Tai" <tainuitidelete@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message > For example, Australians often say "haitch" [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Aussies had the "h" sound the same as us Kiwi's. Has it always been > pronounced that way or has it been picked up fairly recently? I haven't quite figured it out but I'm sure it has something to do with the large proportion of Irish settlers and the Irish nuns who were involved in the education of children. It's very common in Victoria where I live but not everywhere else. As Chookie said it's not standard but I think it might be gaining ground! > My DH is English and from the south west of the country where > EVERYONE says "haitch" For the whole 9 years I lived there I never > pronounced it the other way because it just sounds so darn silly to > me. :) That one I will resist changing to my last breath. :o) Tai > I think it's something I'd feel forced to adopt pretty smartly if > transplanted to the US, but some things are harder to deal with as they > cause a kind of dissonance. For example, Australians often say "haitch" > instead of "aitch" and "haitch" sounds dreadful to my ear. It's not RP here either, but a lot of people say it. Including DH. Gah! I've been having a go at him for that and for the ugly, illogical construction go+verb instead of go and +verb. SignatureChookie -- Sydney, Australia (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply) "Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled." Kerry Cue > I didn't know that! (I wonder why?) People usually say they need to use the > toilet here in Australia, or in the case of my elderly aunt, she'd ask where > the lavatory is in a more formal setting or announce she's going to the loo > to her family. I use loo. When asking for directions, I'd ask for "the Ladies'". Would this not be understood in the USA? SignatureChookie -- Sydney, Australia (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply) "Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled." Kerry Cue >> I didn't know that! (I wonder why?) People usually say they need to use the >> toilet here in Australia, or in the case of my elderly aunt, she'd ask where [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I use loo. When asking for directions, I'd ask for "the Ladies'". Would this > not be understood in the USA? I would understand "loo" but not "the ladies." >>> I didn't know that! (I wonder why?) People usually say they need to use the >>> toilet here in Australia, or in the case of my elderly aunt, she'd ask where [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >I would understand "loo" but not "the ladies." I would understand both, but "loo" wouldn't be as usual IME. >>>> I didn't know that! (I wonder why?) People usually say they need >>>> to use the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I would understand both, but "loo" wouldn't be as usual IME. Well, I think I'd understand both, but "the ladies" might leave me looking around for a group of women. "The ladies' room" on the other hand would be universally understood in the US. Bizby > > In article <56j5ghF29df4...@mid.individual.net>, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I would understand "loo" but not "the ladies." huh, and here I was just about to say that's commonly understood in the US. I guess not! >>> I use loo. When asking for directions, I'd ask for "the Ladies'". Would this >>> not be understood in the USA? >> I would understand "loo" but not "the ladies." > > huh, and here I was just about to say that's commonly understood in > the US. I guess not! I think an awful lot is based on context ;-) In isolation, some might not get it. In actual usage, however, most would clue in just from context even if they weren't totally familiar with the expressions. Best wishes, Ericka >>> I didn't know that! (I wonder why?) People usually say they need to use >>> the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > I would understand "loo" but not "the ladies." I would understand either way. I will ask for the Little Girls room or the Ladies room depending on who I am with. Tori >>>> I didn't know that! (I wonder why?) People usually say they need >>>> to use the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I would understand either way. I will ask for the Little Girls room > or the Ladies room depending on who I am with. Aha! But see, you asked for the ladies' *room* which is very common in the US. In context I'm sure I'd figure it out soon enough, but I can't guarantee I wouldn't come back with "The ladies' what?" before I figured it out. Bizby >>I didn't know that! (I wonder why?) People usually say they need to use the >>toilet here in Australia, or in the case of my elderly aunt, she'd ask where [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I use loo. When asking for directions, I'd ask for "the Ladies'". Would this > not be understood in the USA? I'd probably use "toilet" in a private house, and either "toilet" or "ladies" in a restaurent or other public place. "Loo" and "lavatory" are also commonplace. The male equivalent to "ladies" would be "gents" (short for gentlemen). I'm trying to think what I've seen in posher restaurents. I think the sign would usually say "toilets", but it might be "WC". Most public places would use "toilet", although if the facilities were located in different parts of the building, I think they would use "ladies and "gents". SignaturePenny Gaines UK mum to three > In European homes (and some other places too...) it's common to have > the toilet in a room separate from the bathtub. Makes it nice when one > wants to take a long bath and the other needs to go. Of course, most > American homes have more than one bathroom. I thought that the "separate toilet" (as we call it) was a fairly modern thing, but we now live in a house built in 1946, and it has a separate toilet too. Of course in earlier times, all Australian houses had a separate toilet -- the "dunny" in the back yard! I don't know if that term was used in NZ, though. SignatureChookie -- Sydney, Australia (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply) "Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled." Kerry Cue >> In European homes (and some other places too...) it's common to have >> the toilet in a room separate from the bathtub. Makes it nice when [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > houses had a separate toilet -- the "dunny" in the back yard! I > don't know if that term was used in NZ, though. The suburb I live in still has the old laneways between the back fences of the houses where the nightsoil man came with his cart to empty the dunny buckets. And, yes, dunny is or was in common usage in NZ for an inside toilet, an outside one and as a "longdrop" hole in the ground. I'm sure I would have said it as a child at school but I haven't heard it for a long time. Tai >> In European homes (and some other places too...) it's common to have >> the toilet in a room separate from the bathtub. Makes it nice when one [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > NZ, > though. Separate toilet round here (South England) is often called the "cloakroom". I never came across that term growing up in the north, the cloak room waas where you put your coats! Debbie The terminology gets downright frustrating at times. I teach early childhood music, and the two most common rhythmic reading systems both use syllables which cause problems because some of the kids in every single class have been taught to use them to refer to bodily functions, and therefore, at an age where toilet humor is high art (my 5-7 yr old pre-instrumental group, where we start working on music reading), this is absolutely hilarious. In Kodaly, the two eighth notes are "Ti-ti", and in Gordon "du-di". Sigh. I know Kodaly is European in origin (and dates back long enough that terminology probably isn't the same), but Gordon really should have known better, since he's American and contemporary! Similarly, I have toddlers and preschoolers every year who have completely different views of what is happening when the little piggy goes "wee,wee, wee" all the way home :). > Separate toilet round here (South England) is often called the "cloakroom". > I never came across that term growing up in the north, the cloak room waas > where you put your coats! I heard about this on another list. It seems that the cloakrooms in older houses were turned into the downstairs toilet and basin, or at least included them, when indoor plumbing became possible. SignatureChookie -- Sydney, Australia (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply) "Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled." Kerry Cue >>In European homes (and some other places too...) it's common to have >>the toilet in a room separate from the bathtub. Makes it nice when one [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > -- the "dunny" in the back yard! I don't know if that term was used in NZ, > though. In Britain, up until the 1950s, most houses with indoor plimbing had the toilet (as in the thing you sit on) in a seperate room to the room with a washbasin and bathtub in it. The two rooms were called "toilet" and "bathroom", and were often, but not always, next to each other. They were also almost always upstairs. In the mid 1960s some houses were being built with a single room containing them all, and it became increasingly common for owners of older rooms to knock down the dividing room. However, even today, some older houses have a seperate toilet, often because the original room is not next to the original bathroom. (The vast majority of houses in Britain are two storeys high.) Homes with a downstairs toilet (as well as as an upstairs bathroom) were definately being built in the 1960s. However, it was only in the 1980s that a second upstairs room with a bath or shower became commonplace. The downstairs toilet is often called a "cloakroom" and I'd expect visitors to ask where the "loo" or "toilet" was. If they asked where the bathroom was, I'd assume it was because they needed the bathtub for something. FWIW, I'd usually talk about a "bath", rather then bathtub, and a "basin", rather then "washbasin", but I think those terms are clearer for an international readership. SignaturePenny Gaines UK mum to three > FWIW, I'd usually talk about a "bath", rather then bathtub, and a > "basin", rather then "washbasin", but I think those terms are > clearer > for an international readership. :-) And if I decided to shorten "bathtub," I'd just call it the "tub." And while I understand both "basin" and "washbasin," I'd never call it either of those -- it's the sink! And speaking of washbasins, why the heck do the ones in England have separate hot and cold faucets? Bizby >>FWIW, I'd usually talk about a "bath", rather then bathtub, and a >>"basin", rather then "washbasin", but I think those terms are [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > And speaking of washbasins, why the heck do the ones in England have > separate hot and cold faucets? We don't. We have seperate hot and cold taps :-). Actually some houses have the combined ones, others the seperate ones. I don't know why; the house I grew up in had a combined tap in the bathroom, although it did have seperate ones in the cloakroom. The combined taps seem to make a lot more sense anywhere you'd want warm water - such as for washing hands. Combined taps in kitchens and in the bath(tub) are much more common. SignaturePenny Gaines UK mum to three >>>FWIW, I'd usually talk about a "bath", rather then bathtub, and a >>>"basin", rather then "washbasin", but I think those terms are [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > water - such as for washing hands. Combined taps in kitchens and > in the bath(tub) are much more common. In what case do separate taps make sense though? I'm serious -- I can't think of a single instance where I would want or need to have two different taps for hot and cold. When we were on our honeymoon, the bathroom in the hotel in England was the worst of all that we stayed in. I'm not claiming that all British bathrooms are bad mind you! It also happened to be the cheapest hotel we stayed in, with the hotels progressively getting more expensive as we moved through Europe. The room in Munich was to die for, but then we couldn't have afforded that price for the whole trip. At any rate, the taps were one thing that really bothered us. Washing hands was bad enough, but when we went to brush our teeth, we had to choose between icy cold and steaming hot! We were told that you are supposed to fill the basin with the temperature you wanted, but it would have bothered me dipping my toothbrush in standing water in a basin that could have who knows what germs all over it. The other problem was the bath. We normally take showers, and the place only had a bathtub with a shower curtain. That would have been okay, except that the curtain, rather than surrounding the whole tub, only curled around about a 3 ft diameter section in the front of the tub! Every time you moved, you were bumping into the curtain! Bizby >>>>FWIW, I'd usually talk about a "bath", rather then bathtub, and a >>>>"basin", rather then "washbasin", but I think those terms are [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >can't think of a single instance where I would want or need to have >two different taps for hot and cold. We have separate ones on the boat, and in that case it is because we don't always have the water heated. In the case we didn't have the water heater on, then we would just use the cold. In the case where the water heater HAD been on but we wanted to save the hot water for a shower or something, then we would use the cold for everything else. It might also be to save the money used to heat water - using less hot water would cost less. And having the lever to push for hot or cold (or medium) would mostly automatically mean that hot water was used every time. People have such big hot water heaters now, that it probably doesn't come up as much. And also sometimes the hot water picks up stuff in the water heater which would cause the taste to be off and you wouldn't want to make tea or coffee out of it. >When we were on our honeymoon, the bathroom in the hotel in England >was the worst of all that we stayed in. I'm not claiming that all [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >would have bothered me dipping my toothbrush in standing water in a >basin that could have who knows what germs all over it. Why not just rinse your toothbrush in the cold water? Does the toothbrush care? Do your teeth care? Basically most of the time I do not use hot water at all except to shower in. If I'm given the choice, I wash my hands and face in cold water. >The other problem was the bath. We normally take showers, and the >place only had a bathtub with a shower curtain. That would have been >okay, except that the curtain, rather than surrounding the whole tub, >only curled around about a 3 ft diameter section in the front of the >tub! Every time you moved, you were bumping into the curtain! I think in that case I would have taken a bath, or have done what my mom called a sponge bath. > It might also be to save the money used to heat water - using less > hot > water would cost less. And having the lever to push for hot or cold > (or medium) would mostly automatically mean that hot water was used > every time. People have such big hot water heaters now, that it > probably doesn't come up as much. Well, only the kitchen sink has a single lever -- the others have individual cold and hot handles, so I would assume if you only turned on the cold knob, you'd only get cold water. It's the...spigot? tap? pipe the water comes out? that it seems odd to have two of. >>At any rate, the taps were one thing that really bothered us. >>Washing [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Why not just rinse your toothbrush in the cold water? Does the > toothbrush care? Do your teeth care? Yes, my teeth care. I do have sensitive teeth, and so having very hot or very cold water was a problem. I minor one of course, but a problem nonetheless. >>The other problem was the bath. We normally take showers, and the >>place only had a bathtub with a shower curtain. That would have [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I think in that case I would have taken a bath, or have done what my > mom called a sponge bath. But neither of those would have been much good for getting your hair clean, though I suppose people do get used to washing and rinsing in the tub. In France the bathtub had a hand shower and no shower curtain. It wasn't exactly a hand shower....it was mounted on a swing arm at sitting height, so you'd take a bath and then use the showerhead only for rinsing your hair. That was fine. Bizby >> It might also be to save the money used to heat water - using less >> hot [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >on the cold knob, you'd only get cold water. It's the...spigot? tap? >pipe the water comes out? that it seems odd to have two of. All our sinks either have completely separate handles and spigots - that is the hot and cold come out at separate places - or else they have a knob or lever that turns between hot and cold. In order to get cold, you have the lever all the way right or the knob turned all the way right. And no matter which way you turned it there was a central tap or spigot that all the water came out of. >>>At any rate, the taps were one thing that really bothered us. >>>Washing [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >or very cold water was a problem. I minor one of course, but a >problem nonetheless. So rinse in cold, and just swish the toothbrush quickly thro the hot or v.v. Or run it through the hot and then wave it around to get cool. I generally don't wet my toothbrush first, so it wouldn't bother me what the temperature was to wash it off afterwards. >>>The other problem was the bath. We normally take showers, and the >>>place only had a bathtub with a shower curtain. That would have [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >arm at sitting height, so you'd take a bath and then use the >showerhead only for rinsing your hair. That was fine. In the house that I grew up in, there was one very old bathroom with a clawfoot tub and no shower. We always washed our hair in the sink. And at that time all three of us (my mom, my sister and me) all had very long waist length hair which had never been cut. We didn't have a hair dryer either. I never took a shower until I went to HS when we moved to a house that had one (and also I had to take a shower in PE in the gang showers) I will still sometimes when I don't want to take a shower, wash just my hair under the bathtub tap. Once a cruise ship that was rocking and rolling so that I didn't think I could stand up in the shower, I sat on the toilet and stuck my head into the shower and used the shower head to wash my hair. >>Yes, my teeth care. I do have sensitive teeth, and so having very >>hot [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > cool. I generally don't wet my toothbrush first, so it wouldn't > bother me what the temperature was to wash it off afterwards. Lol!! I *said* it wasn't a big problem! We were only there 3 days or so, and we muddled through somehow. I do tend to use more water when I brush than you though. First I put the toothpaste on the brush, and then wet it before I put it in my mouth. Then when I'm pretty much through brushing, I spit and rinse the brush and then run the brush around again. I usually do that two or three times. Then I swish a handful of water around in my mouth and spit it out. I usually do that two or three times too. I really can't stand the taste of toothpaste left in my mouth! Bizby > In what case do separate taps make sense though? I'm serious -- I > can't think of a single instance where I would want or need to have > two different taps for hot and cold. You have missed the point. One tap regulates water from the hot pipe, the other the water from the cold pipe. The joining together of hot and cold pipes and provision of a combined outlet was a much more recent invention. (I think you've forgotten how recent indoor plumbing is). > At any rate, the taps were one thing that really bothered us. Washing > hands was bad enough, but when we went to brush our teeth, we had to > choose between icy cold and steaming hot! We were told that you are > supposed to fill the basin with the temperature you wanted, but it > would have bothered me dipping my toothbrush in standing water in a > basin that could have who knows what germs all over it. Um, no. You put toothpaste on the brush, run some cold water on it, brush, and rinse in cold. You should not use water from the hot water system in your mouth -- hot water tanks are a great environment for germs, and cleaned much less frequently than basins. I am sure that the basinful of water referred to washing your face. SignatureChookie -- Sydney, Australia (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply) "Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled." Kerry Cue >> In what case do separate taps make sense though? I'm serious -- I >> can't think of a single instance where I would want or need to have [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > invention. (I > think you've forgotten how recent indoor plumbing is). But as far as I know, indoor plumbing came to the States and England at about the same time, and I've never seen a sink in America that has two separate faucets (pipes, tubes, whatever) for the water to come out of. >> At any rate, the taps were one thing that really bothered us. >> Washing [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > cleaned much > less frequently than basins. Rinsing in cold is really painful for me with my teeth and something I've never done. I don't think I've ever seen a recommendation not to drink hot tap water before. I certainly don't get sick often, and have never been sick with anything that was likely to come from a hot water heater -- well, unless colds, allergies, and hormonally based migraines come from there. > I am sure that the basinful of water referred to washing your face. Ah. Bizby >>> In what case do separate taps make sense though? I'm serious -- I >>> can't think of a single instance where I would want or need to have [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >two separate faucets (pipes, tubes, whatever) for the water to come >out of. It was quite common. Having both of them come out of the same faucet is VERY recent. Really. >>> At any rate, the taps were one thing that really bothered us. >>> Washing [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > >Bizby >>>> In what case do separate taps make sense though? I'm serious -- >>>> I [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > faucet > is VERY recent. Really. Okay, I'll have to take your word for it. It's just something I'd never seen here, and I don't know how common it is anymore there either. Bizby > >>But as far as I know, indoor plumbing came to the States and England > >>at about the same time, Styles are different and different things became popular at different times. I haven't been to England since 1982. I was at a boarding school and visited various relatives and friends. At that time, the plumbing was very different from American plumbing. Most homes had bathtubs, but not showers. In the one house where I saw a shower, the controls were completely different from any I've ever seen in the US. Some new toilets were still being installed with the tanks way up high and pull chains to flush. Appliances were quite different too. The washing machines I saw did not have spin cycles. They washed the clothes, the clothes were then transfered to a spin dryer which spun the clothes to a drier state than American washing machine spin cycles. After that they were hung up to complete the process. I didn't see any tumble dryers. Recently, when my parents went over and visited various relatives, they came back marveling about their wonderful showers which all have thermostats to set for your shower temperature. Americans are starting to buy these now, but we seem to be a bit behind. > >> and I've never seen a sink in America that > >>has > >>two separate faucets (pipes, tubes, whatever) for the water to come > >>out of. I live in the US. My house was built in 1931 and we have 2 separate faucets for hot and cold in our bathroom sinks. My grandmother lived in a house built in the 1930s and had separate hot and cold faucets. My parents house was built about 1945 and was considered very modern at that time. It has 1 faucet per sink. --Betsy >> >>But as far as I know, indoor plumbing came to the States and England >> >>at about the same time, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > than American washing machine spin cycles. After that they were hung > up to complete the process. I didn't see any tumble dryers. <grin> I haven't seen a spin drier since my Gran died. She didn't like these modern contraptions like washing machines. She would handwash the clothes before spinning them dry. Mum got rid of her spinner in 1976 and moved to a full machine. I think she was quite late to do this too. They're great fun to use though, and I believe some even could churn butter as an extra feature. Tumble driers are fairly common place, but often washer/tumble combos. We've got a tumble drier, but I rarely use it as the washing's much nicer if it hasn't been dried that way. Debbie > <grin> I haven't seen a spin drier since my Gran died. She didn't > like these modern contraptions like washing machines. She would > handwash the clothes before spinning them dry. Mum got rid of her > spinner in 1976 and moved to a full machine. I think she was quite > late to do this too. My grandma's machine when I was a kid had rollers to squeeze the water out. It would wash and drain, and then you'd have to pick out each individual piece of clothing by hand and run it through the rollers. Then you'd take it all outside to line dry. We'd never even heard of a separate spinner until we were in Switzerland and went to a laundromat there. At first we tried putting the sopping clothes straight into the dryer, then realized it was hopeless and figured out that the washing machines only drained and didn't spin! Bizby On Mar 28, 4:34 am, "Welches" <debbie.welc...@SPAMntlworldPLEASE.com> wrote: > >> >>But as far as I know, indoor plumbing came to the States and England > >> >>at about the same time, [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > They're great fun to use though, and I believe some even could churn butter > as an extra feature. I never saw this, but some of my aunts had the old wringer thing. The washer would churn the clothes, then you get each piece and put it through the wringer. > Tumble driers are fairly common place, but often washer/tumble combos. We've > got a tumble drier, but I rarely use it as the washing's much nicer if it > hasn't been dried that way. Oh man I hated the washer/tumble combo. I had one for a while in Liverpool (late 90s) and it was beyond worthless. I finally learned to set it so I could take out the clothes before it went to the tumble cycle. Most of my friends in the UK didn't have dryers then. As for Switzerland - I think all the ILs do, but a lot of people don't. I live in the US and we don't own a dryer. We line dry everything, including cloth diapers (just finally got up our clothesline this weekend, so we're not relying on drying racks anymore!). >On Mar 28, 4:34 am, "Welches" <debbie.welc...@SPAMntlworldPLEASE.com> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> > than American washing machine spin cycles. After that they were hung >> > up to complete the process. I didn't see any tumble dryers. When my daughter was in England, the washing machine was quite different from ours here - took ages and ages and did a very small load. I didn't get involved in the actual process though. She only did the wash at night. >> <grin> I haven't seen a spin drier since my Gran died. She didn't like these >> modern contraptions like washing machines. She would handwash the clothes [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >washer would churn the clothes, then you get each piece and put it >through the wringer. My mom had one of these, and so did my aunt. The roller was run by electricity I was "helping" them when the were washing blankets -- and I ran my whole arm through the roller by accident (I was about 10). Fortunately, I didn't have any permanent damage because the blanket setting was quite loose, but it was a bit scary. I think if it had been set tighter, it might have broken some bones. >> Tumble driers are fairly common place, but often washer/tumble combos. We've >> got a tumble drier, but I rarely use it as the washing's much nicer if it [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >including cloth diapers (just finally got up our clothesline this >weekend, so we're not relying on drying racks anymore!). We didn't own a dryer when we were in Key West, or in Norfolk, but in northern California where it is foggy most of the time, we did have one (which was originally my granddads before he died). And I got another one when we moved to Philadelphia in January with a kid in diapers. It really is so irritating that the homeowners associations and covenants mandate that people not dry clothes outside on lines in a lot of places. I wonder whether we couldn't 'get' them to change on the basis of global warming. >>On Mar 28, 4:34 am, "Welches" <debbie.welc...@SPAMntlworldPLEASE.com> >>wrote: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > load. I didn't get involved in the actual process though. She only > did the wash at night. Depends on the size of the washer. Our machine does approximately two days of clothes from the whole family, plus one or two extras. It takes about an hour on a normal 40deg cotton cycle. It can take our king-sized (I think this is different from USA king size after a previous conversation here) duvet but nothing else realistically. You can get very small ones for one person, and even ones that go on the work surface next to the sink. you attach the water pipe to the tap and put the draining pipe in the sink. I haven't seen one of htese since I was a student though. The night time might be for a particular reason. Certain areas of the UK you can have peak/off peak electricity. (can't remember what it's called but there is a technical name) Off-peak is much cheaper and is between something like 11pm and 6am. So if you're on that form of electricity then you will do everything you can at night, washing, dishwashing, etc. Debbie >>> <grin> I haven't seen a spin drier since my Gran died. She didn't like >>> these [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > lot of places. I wonder whether we couldn't 'get' them to change on > the basis of global warming. > It really is so irritating that the homeowners associations and > covenants mandate that people not dry clothes outside on lines in a > lot of places. I wonder whether we couldn't 'get' them to change on > the basis of global warming. We refused to buy in a place that had a homeowners association for a variety of reasons, this being one of them. We have no excuse here, we get sunshine 300+ days per year. Occasionally, like last week, it's a problem when we have 5+ days straight of rain, but that happens rarely. Even in January it's generally sunny enough to dry clothes (and at least dry enough indoors to dry clothes). We do occasionally use the dryer at the laundromat down the street, but not very often. > > >>But as far as I know, indoor plumbing came to the States and England > > >>at about the same time, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > plumbing was very different from American plumbing. Most homes had > bathtubs, but not showers. True. > In the one house where I saw a shower, the > controls were completely different from any I've ever seen in the US. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > than American washing machine spin cycles. After that they were hung > up to complete the process. I didn't see any tumble dryers. I don't think your experience is an accurate representation of England in 1982. I was born in 1970 and have never seen a spin dryer in use. In 1982 most people I knew had a washing machine with a spin cycle and about 1/2 of the people had tumble dryers. Maybe this was because most of the people I spent time with were families with children, who would be more likely to have more laundry. Even now, tumble dryers are not that popular, people preferring to line dry. Tumble dryers EAT electricity. > > >> and I've never seen a sink in America that > > >>has [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > --Betsy I think mixer taps are indeed quite a modern thing in the UK. I think they are quite a British thing as I never saw them when I visited continental Europe. Mary Ann [snip] >>Appliances were quite different too. The washing machines I saw did >>not have spin cycles. They washed the clothes, the clothes were then [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > have more laundry. Even now, tumble dryers are not that popular, > people preferring to line dry. Tumble dryers EAT electricity. I can't remember seeing a spin drier, except in holiday homes. Every other washing machine I can remember - and this goes back to the 1970s - was a frontloader with a spin drier included. What I do remember is that none of my relatives had them plumbed in, so they had to be pushed across to the sink, the inlet pipes hooked up to the taps, and the outlet pump put over the sink. Then after the washing had finished, you had to push it away again. >>>>>and I've never seen a sink in America that >>>>>has [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > they are quite a British thing as I never > saw them when I visited continental Europe. I've lived in two homes with mixer taps, both built in the 1960s. I've also lived in houses built in the 1980s and 1990s and they *don't* have mixer taps in the bathrooms. However mixer taps in kitchens seem moderately common. SignaturePenny Gaines UK mum to three > But as far as I know, indoor plumbing came to the States and England > at about the same time, and I've never seen a sink in America that has > two separate faucets (pipes, tubes, whatever) for the water to come > out of. Most of the sinks in the house I grew up in (Seattle) had separate hot and cold taps. I think most of the plumbing was original, and the house had been built around 1910 (I can never remember the exact year). I *think* you can still buy such sinks in order to remodel such a house in period style. > > Um, no. You put toothpaste on the brush, run some cold water on it, > > brush, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > water heater -- well, unless colds, allergies, and hormonally based > migraines come from there. I've always heard that you shouldn't drink or cook with hot tap water, but not because of germs -- I was told it was because it was more likely to have minerals in it that one wouldn't want, such as lead. It hadn't occurred to me that anyone would brush their teeth in hot water, but I don't have sensitive teeth myself. --Helen >>In what case do separate taps make sense though? I'm serious -- I >>can't think of a single instance where I would want or need to have [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > pipes and provision of a combined outlet was a much more recent invention. (I > think you've forgotten how recent indoor plumbing is). [snip] Maybe the out-of-sight plumbing is different as well. Over here, the hot water comes from one tank, where it is heated and stored (called the hot water tank :-) ), and cold water is stored in a "cold water tank" Usually, the cold water in the kitchen comes directly from the external supply, and some (smaller) houses have no cold water tank. The pipes in the house take hot water from the hw tank to the hot taps, and water from the cold water tank to the cold taps. If there is more then one hot tap, or more then one cold tap, running at the same time, the amount of water reaching the tap will change. If you do have a mixer tap running, and someone turns on the cold tap elsewhere, the mixer tap temperature suddenly gets much hotter. Similarly, if they turn on a hot tap, the water from the mixer tap gets much colder. This can sometimes merely be unpleasant, but it could lead to scalds. FWIW, mixer taps in the kitchen and the bath tub are much more common. SignaturePenny Gaines UK mum to three >>FWIW, I'd usually talk about a "bath", rather then bathtub, and a >>"basin", rather then "washbasin", but I think those terms are [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Bizby Probably for the same reason my American house does. Clisby >>>FWIW, I'd usually talk about a "bath", rather then bathtub, and a >>>"basin", rather then "washbasin", but I think those terms are [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Probably for the same reason my American house does. And what reason is that? Bizby >>>>FWIW, I'd usually talk about a "bath", rather then bathtub, and a >>>>"basin", rather then "washbasin", but I think those terms are [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Bizby They came with the house. However, I think I misunderstood what you were saying. When I say "faucet", I mean the thing that turns on and regulates the water (as opposed to the spigot, where the water comes out.) I think you mean completely separate hot and cold apparatuses. Clisby > They came with the house. However, I think I misunderstood what > you were saying. When I say "faucet", I mean the thing that turns > on and regulates the water (as opposed to the spigot, where the > water comes out.) I think you mean completely separate hot and > cold apparatuses. Really? I always thought of "faucet" as the whole thing. That is, our kitchen faucet has one handle, whereas our bathroom faucets all have two. Bizby > I saw that someone had asked for books about NIH in another post, but > I was wondering if anyone has tried it out. I am a first time mother [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Any experiences with NIH? > Any advice? Hi I see you have a new baby and it sounds like you are interested in natural products. Are you aware of the amount of chemicals in baby care products. I would like to forward you more information about natural personal care products for you and your family. I know most people think that if a product is on a store shelf they must be safe. No they are not. Contact me and I will forward more info. No obligation to buy anything. My email is capricornfarms@hotmail.com or check out my website http://vilawlor.teamvitality.com Vi > Hi > I see you have a new baby and it sounds like you are interested in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > people think that if a product is on a store shelf they must be safe. > No they are not. I know some people think if a product is "natural," it is safe. Not necessarily. >> Hi >> I see you have a new baby and it sounds like you are interested in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I know some people think if a product is "natural," it is safe. Not > necessarily. What? Does this mean I need to cut back on my belladonna milkshakes? ;-) - Rich -- Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam. >> I saw that someone had asked for books about NIH in another post, but >> I was wondering if anyone has tried it out. I am a first time mother [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > check out my website http://vilawlor.teamvitality.com > Vi Getting involved in selling MLM junk will help her not use diapers? Isn't natural infant hygiene when the baby poops, pees and pukes and an adult or sometimes older sibling or babysitter cleans it up? That is the way I have seen it happen almost everywhere I go. Seems natural to me. Jeff > Isn't natural infant hygiene when the baby poops, pees and pukes and an > adult or sometimes older sibling or babysitter cleans it up? Yes, but with the added benefit that you get to clean the feces out of the carpet and couch, too. ;-) > That is the way I have seen it happen almost everywhere I go. Seems natural > to me. It's another one of those parenting fads that people will look back on and say, "WHAT was wrong with those people?" Or, now that I think about it, maybe it's actually a smart business strategy by the folks who run steam-cleaning services... hmmm.... - Rich -- Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam. > > Isn't natural infant hygiene when the baby poops, pees and pukes and an > > adult or sometimes older sibling or babysitter cleans it up? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > it, maybe it's actually a smart business strategy by the folks who run > steam-cleaning services... hmmm.... I wouldn't call it a 'fad.' It's standard practice in a large part of the world, similar to using slings/wraps to carry a baby. Cracks me up how everyone thinks it's the 'newest' thing when people around the world have been doing it for eons. EC is not for me - I work and even if I didn't wouldn't trust myself to catch her enough times, and frankly it's inconvenient to be near an available toilet as often as DD needed to poop/pee in those early days. We would have never left the house. But I can see the value in it. Instead I just settle for cloth diapers to have a low impact on the environment. >> > Isn't natural infant hygiene when the baby poops, pees and pukes and an >> > adult or sometimes older sibling or babysitter cleans it up? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > how everyone thinks it's the 'newest' thing when people around the > world have been doing it for eons. Sure, but is it standard practice in the developed world? There's this subset of people that seem to think that just because people living in mud huts do something, it must be more "natural" or "better" somehow - regardless of whether the people in mud huts drop the practice like a hot rock when they manage to pull themselves up into, oh, the 18th Century. ;-) - Rich > >> > Isn't natural infant hygiene when the baby poops, pees and pukes and an > >> > adult or sometimes older sibling or babysitter cleans it up? [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > drop the practice like a hot rock when they manage to pull themselves > up into, oh, the 18th Century. ;-) Kinda like formula feeding is considered better now in the lesser developed countries because the developed countries pushed it so much. Only the 'poor peasants' due that icky thing of breastfeeding. (I shouldn't say 'now', more like for the past 30 yrs, but today, that's changing back, very slowly) I'm not arguing EC is better or worse. Certainly defecating in places not designed for it (ie, all over the bushes ) is not sound public health practice and I wouldn't recommend it. But EC in a home? Why not? I can't see how it's worse, just time consuming and less convenient. > I'm not arguing EC is better or worse. Certainly defecating in places > not designed for it (ie, all over the bushes ) is not sound public > health practice and I wouldn't recommend it. But EC in a home? Why > not? I can't see how it's worse, just time consuming and less > convenient. Because I think most people want to get out; and when they do, they want to continue to practice what they do at home for consistancy. If you wait a couple of months to practice EC, that is until the baby poops on some kind of recognizable schedule instead of all the time the way tiny infants do, then EC strikes me as not particularly limiting. Most babies apparently can "hold it in" for about 10 minutes by a few months of age, and 10 minutes is enough to to either get to a toilet. If you keep your baby in cloth diapers while practicing EC, then the occasional accident, esp. when it's because you're away from home and can't get to a toilet fast enough, shouldn't be a big issue. (Although I hear that babies used to being kept clean scream a lot when they soil themelves. Wow.) My friends both said it was easier than they had initially expected. --Beth Kevles bethkevles@aol.com http://web.mit.edu/kevles/www/nomilk.html -- a page for the milk-allergic Disclaimer: Nothing in this message should be construed as medical advice. Please consult with your own medical practicioner. NOTE: No email is read at my MIT address. Use the AOL one if you would like me to reply. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.