how are we ever expected to experience world peace when countries can’t even agree on word definitions?
if a blue/green eyed resident of, say, texas, was visiting hong kong, and managed to get herself arrested, she could find herself in the clink for a stolen passport or identification on the grounds that her id declares her eyes to be “hazel” in colour.
in many countries of the world, “hazel” means light brown. but in the US (and a few other locations) hazel means blue/green. moral of the story…don’t get arrested in hong kong?
moving on at a sharpish pace (have to take carys to physio in a jiff), i can see huge fights breaking out if at a peacekeeping dinner when it came time for dessert, the brits and many of their european compatriots, who had requested “pudding” in their menu cards, found bowls of thick cold goo (but tasty, i must say) placed in front of them, while the aussies and kiwi’s were celebrating with a gloriously decorated pavlova and other nations were gobbling down a cheeseboard and grapes. in the UK, pudding is dessert, not the goo.
of course, the hope lies with the children. so it’s time to get a few issues sorted out:
find one name for:
“pacifiers” : binky, dummy, soothers, paccies…sort it out folks.
“nappies” : nappies or diapers….one or the other
“bottle nipples” : teats is accepted in most commonwealth countries…but could the rest of the countries say the word without giggling?
school: is it level one, primary one or grade one?
shorts: i heard a great story the other day where a kiwi teacher walked into the change room before PE class and instructed the slow moving 10 year old boys, “come on boys, get your shorts off”. and so none of the boys wore underpants to gym that day. because in the uk, underpants are shorts. short pants are shorts.
i have to take the c now….but i hope you get the drift and send me further suggestions.
xo from mumma mia!
