Your observation is a Scandinavia thing.
Mainland Europe's free public restrooms are not nicer than the US.
Mainland Europe's free public restrooms are not nicer than the US.
> 1. The original and locally preferred view is that Iceland, Finland, Faroe Islands, and Greenland are all countries considered to be part of the Nordics, but not technically part of Scandinavia (which would only be Sweden, Norway and Denmark in this case).
> 2. The international and more commonly preferred view is that the Faroe Islands, Finland and Iceland are part of both Scandinavia and the Nordics, leaving Greenland as the only non-Scandinavian country in the Nordics (along with the Norwegian territories of Svalbard, Jan Mayen and Bouvet Island).
https://nordicperspective.com/facts/nordic-vs-scandinavian#w...
In the Nordics the terms are not just "preferred" but unambiguously used this way.
You're right, in that Scandinavia is a peninsula and Iceland being a far off island is not part of it.
English is a weird and inexact language where there are a lot of different things words can mean. Seizing upon a single obviously-incorrect definition is not the whole story.
I'm sorry this bothers you; however I fear that you face the same battle as would a German trying to get Americans to call their country "Deutschland" instead of "Germany".
The use to include any country other than Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, is something that will tend to really annoy Scandinavians, as we're generally consistent in that use and it's foreigners trying to tell is what names to use for ourselves.
It may be a losing battle, but it's not one we'll give up on.
There's no English language authority dictating what the word "Scandinavia" does/does not mean. The language is its usage.
The first wikipedia paragraph does a good job breaking it down: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavia
Only English speakers ignorant of the history of Scandinavia sometimes excludes it.
Tjere is no English language authority that has any business redefining what Scandinavia means at all. It's just insulting when English speakers believe they get to decide to redefine the names of regions that don't belong to them. It's rude.
Right, and none exists.
> In Scandinavia or categorically always includes Denmark.
> Only English speakers ignorant of the history of Scandinavia sometimes excludes it.
These two sentences are contradictory.
Maybe this is a translation error for you where what you mean when you say "Scandinavia" and what others mean when they say "Scandinavia" don't match up, and this upsets you?
Like I said above; what you're doing is tantamount to a German fighting to get English speakers to call their country "Deutschland". Who are we to redefine them as "Germany"? The difference here being that the English word in the "Scandinavia" case actually does have a slightly different meaning than your own native word, but this is upsetting to you because unlike with "Deutschland" it is pronounced the same.
"Scandinavia" is an English word as well despite its resemblance to words in your native tongue. Who are you to tell English speakers what their own language means?
I do believe you are mistaking how the English language works for stubborn ignorance.
There are many dialects of English, and the way I speak mine doesn't change how you speak yours.
It's very colonial of you to think that your way of doing things is the best and must be forcibly pressed upon others. That you feel embarrassed by the (correct!) use of a word in a different dialect means you have some work to do on yourself.
It would be ignorant to assert it was.
> Scandinavia, part of northern Europe, generally held to consist of the two countries of the Scandinavian Peninsula, Norway and Sweden, with the addition of Denmark.
You've been found wanting in your claims.
> Some authorities argue for the inclusion of Finland on geologic and economic grounds and of Iceland and the Faroe Islands on the grounds that their inhabitants speak North Germanic (or Scandinavian) languages related to those of Norway and Sweden. Typically, when these other areas are added to Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, the group is called the "Nordic countries.”
Britannica is not authoritative, it is one view. It attempts to promulgate One Answer, not to capture the breadth of all English usage in all countries. It hedges itself with words like "generally".
I've never argued that the Britannica interpretation is invalid, just that mine is also valid. Nothing you posted contradicts that.
This all is like a French person getting annoyed at a Quebecois because they're using a different word. Or a Spaniard getting annoyed at an Argentinian. Different places use different words differently, and thinking it isn't so is simultaneously arrogant and ignorant.
You argued people weren't bringing sources. Now you're arguing your sources are infallible while any that refute you are open to interpretation?
I'm not arguing my sources aren't infalliable, I'm just arguing that they exist among other right answers.
I'm certain you are 0/2 comments in actually understanding what I'm saying. Read the second to last paragraph of my last comment please.
It's already an English word with multiple meanings. I'm correctly using one of those meanings, in English.
I'm just informing people apparently unaware that the language I speak has that meaning for that word. If they don't care to learn about how the English language works, that is their choice. The learning opportunity is there.
What you're doing is different to translation, it is insisting on a different grouping. It's rude and insulting.
But even when it comes to translation, then yes, a lot of people take offence at that as well, and you'll notice there is a trend back towards the official spelling of names that has been ongoing for decades for exactly that reason.
I'm insisting on the word refering to multiple groupings in the English language. This is a matter of fact not opinion, and is obvious to anyone who understands how the English language works.
I'm sorry it insults you that other people in another part of the world use a word in their language to refer to a region, when you strongly feel it should refer to a smaller region. If I have further questions about your opinions on words in my language, I'll be sure to ask.
A washroom at at an Irving in rural New Brunswick will have the same weird smells and nonspecific grossness as a Petro in North Vancouver.
Granted, I also haven't visited most of Europe since being a kid, though at that time I remember a few Orlans in Poland and Elfs and Mobils in France having a much cleaner vibe than the gas stations back home.
I’m not above admitting I’m not up to date on how the public washroom situation in the rest of Europe has changed in the past 15-20 years, though.
Which mainland European countries have epic free public toilets as a rule rather than as an exception?
I'll admit it's possible these countries exist, just that they aren't any of the ones I've been to.
Since the mainland European countries I haven't been to are mostly either microstates (which I'm not counting) or post-Soviet, I doubt your claim.
Personally, I rather enjoyed the roadside German toilets. Though they aren't free. But for a small fee you get a reasonably clean toilet while driving somewhere.
Worst public toilet experience in Europe? Hands down, Bulgaria. Sorry, Bulgarians, I love you guys, but your toilets....... Ugh!