When I was young, loo was pretty upper-class, but then got used on TV quite a lot, and seems to have now become more or less universal.

I'd always assumed it came from l'eau - French for water. My reasoning being that in sixteenth century Edinburgh, there were tall tenement blocks without sanitation, and people used to throw their waste water out of the window. Before doing so they'd shout "Gardyloo", a corruption of "Gardez l'eau", i.e."Look out, water". But Etymology Online seems to support what Brus and Skeeter Lewis have said, so I'll have to give up my theory, I suppose.

And Skeeter Lewis is quite right. When I was young, we weren't allowed to say "toilet", and had to say "lavatory" instead. But they're both just as euphemistic. At school it was the bog (or the bogs for the public ones).

@By and large, at this moment of time, once you've drilled down, pushed the envelope, thought outside the box and kept me in the loop, I might agree. All it needs is some blue sky thinking going forward, followed by a good brain dump and ideas cascade, and then if we all got our ducks in a row, we could really leverage this debate .

But I rather like the sound of anent. :))

@Hairy Scot - Hi. I don't think "different to" falls into your PS category, as it's pretty old. It seems in fact to be an older usage (1520) than "different from" (which is first attested to in Shakespeare) (MWDEU).

I'd like, however, to try a different tack. If anyone had asked me a year ago what preposition follows "different", I would have answered "from" without thinking. I wasn't even aware that I ever used "different to" till I was taken to task by your good self for writing - "and I think the position of the subjunctive is very different in British English, to that in American English" on a thread about "was /were". I was a bit miffed, as I consider myself a reasonably educated speaker of Standard English, so I did a bit of investigating in dictionaries and usage guides, which seemed to exonerate me. As Quinlon says, its use is unobjectionable, and Fowler seemed to think the same.

But what really interests me is that I would usually use "from", so why did I use "to" in that case? And I can only imagine it had something to do with the following "that". Now if that's the case, and if I'm typical, it's not so much a matter of some (OK most) people using "from" and others "to", rather than that some people like me occasionally use "to" in certain circumstances. (I don't think I ever use "than", which is not really surprising, as this is mainly American usage). If this is the case, the low showing of "to" in Ngram (and I have to admit in Corpora studies) might make a bit more sense.

So I'm now having a bit of a closer look at how it is used, whether it is more likely to occur in certain constructions. With any luck I'll get enough stuff together to post something on my blog. Oh, the joys of the Internet! What does seem quite clear though, is that Googling "different to" seems to bring up results mainly in the media and on academic and government related websites. And it seems rather popular in Australia. Oh, and David Cameron likes it (but I don't know if that helps or hinders my case)!

As for solecism, it might interest you to know that it is the 83,234th most common word in English (according to Wordcount.org), which makes me feel a bit better (OK, I had to look it up!). So, what with redux, which is also a new one on me, this thread is turning out to be quite educational.

@Hairy Scot - I hope you're not boasting! :)

@Hairy Scot - so you like Stan's graphs, but not his conclusions, apparently. But I'm glad you've found Sentence First; it's a fascinating blog, and one of the few linguistics blogs with a BrE slant (well, Irish).

People on your side of this argument do seem to like the word "solecism", don't you? - I wonder which meaning you have most in mind - "a mistake in the use of language in speech or writing" or "an example of bad manners or unacceptable behaviour".

Let me go back to one of my "mantras", as you like to call them - If you don't like it, don't use it. But that doesn't mean it's an error (let's call a spade a spade, shall we).

And if I could also just repeat that most of the time I use "from" as well, and I can't imagine myself saying "apples are different to oranges". But before certain "what" clauses I find "to" more natural, "solecism" or not.

I've already given several references to sources where "different to" is quite allowable. I'll add just one more, from Michael Quinlan's highly respected World Wide Words - "The usual advice these days is that from is irreproachable. To is unobjectionable in British English but may need thought if it is to appear in the US".

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-dif1.htm

You say there are just as many, if not more, that maintain the reverse, so let's have one or two. Otherwise, I'm afraid it's just an assertion. One educated Scot against another. Have a good Hogmanay when it comes.

@Mature Lady -the answer is simple - don't! Why should any of us presume to 'correct' the way other people talk? In any case, as we can see in these pages, people's ideas of what constitutes correct varies quite a bit. And just because I differentiate between hanged and hung doesn't mean that someone else who doesn't is wrong. There are quite a few newer usages I don't like, so I don't use them. But correct another native speaker's grammar? Never. (Unless they're laying down the law in these pages, in which they're fair game!)

re: seldomly - it's in at least a couple of dictionaries:
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/seldomly
http://www.wordnik.com/words/seldomly
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/seldomly

The Wiktionary entry has attested examples from the Washington Post, both about sport.

I think this is mainly an American issue, but if I can just give a British angle (without making any judgements one way or the other).

On what goofy was saying, Burchfield in the New Fowler's supports him as to the antiquity of its use, but suggests that it has rather fallen out of favour among standard speakers in England (although perhaps not in Scotland), and best avoided. And although MWDEU says that it is treated with greater tolerance in BrE, I can't remember hearing it used much like this. MWDEU also says it is treated as standard in American and English dictionaries, but admit that most of their British references are Scottish, where the verb is used more in the sense of 'present'.

As to British dictionaries, I've just checked in seven online versions. Unfortunately I don't have access to the OED, but of the others only two British dictionaries (Oxford Online and Collins Online) seem to list gift as a verb in this sense (but see below), and they both suggest that this is rather formal use, especially to and from institutions - "give (something) as a gift, especially formally or as a donation or bequest" - with a meaning closer to 'present'. They also give the meaning goofy suggested of 'endow', which is absolutely standard, especially in its adjectival form - 'a gifted pianist'.

The fact that it doesn't appear as a verb in any of the other five, (mainly but not exclusively aimed at advanced learners), suggests that it isn't used very much like this in BrE, and my impression is that it is largely seen here as being either an Americanism or rather pretentious. I found a comment from one British EFL teacher who said he had been surprised to see a photo caption "Mr Kennedy, a fan of the water dog, is said to have gifted one to the Obamas" on the BBC website, and there are several references to this sentence on the web, but the only one I can find on the BBC the caption reads "given", so perhaps a sub later changed it.

The BBC, Economist and Telegraph style guides don''t seem to mention it but the Guardian Style Guide brooks no nonsense - "gift - not a verb (unless, perhaps, directly quoting a football manager or player: "We gifted Barnsley their fifth goal") " - (see below), not that the Guardian Style Guide (or any other newspaper style guide for that matter) should be taken as gospel.

That sports example is backed up by Oxford Online and the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary which give this meaning as informal and, I think, peculiarly British and popular in journalism - to give something to somebody without their having to make any effort to get it, or inadvertently allow (an opponent) to have something:

"They gifted their opponents a goal / a goal to their opponents"
"The goalkeeper gifted Liverpool their last-minute winner."

@PaulMcG - Not to belittle the effect of Seinfeld, but MWDEU rather suggests that the revival started in Hollywood glossy magazines of the fifties, if you include the fifties as being in the modern era. Follow goofy's link for more on that.

There's also a discussion (with that BBC quote) here - http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-513827.html

@ Skeeter Lewis - I must say I do enjoy our sword-crossing sessions (and occasional agreements), and wish you all the best for Christmas and the New Year in return. :))

@Jasper - in its most common use, concerning is indeed a preposition - "He asked several questions concerning the future of the company.". But I think Denkof Zwemmen has noticed the present participle being used as an adjective, as in this example from a New Zealand website - "Conservative Party: TPPA: Lack of Transparency is Concerning" or this one from the States - "Placement of crosswalk is concerning to Ann Arbor parent".

I've found it listed in two dictionaries as an adjective, meaning "worrying or troublesome" - "The increase in crime in the area is very concerning." - http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/concerning_2 and - http://thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=concerning - but they seem to be the exception; most dictionaries I've looked at only list it as a preposition.

I'm pretty sure I've heard it used this way in BrE, and it seems quite unexceptional to me. I would imagine, however that it is only used in predicate position after the verb, and it would be unusual before a noun, as in "a concerning problem".

Someone has done a bit of research with Google here - http://www.wordwizard.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=19755 - and seems to find it to be mainly a British phenomenon, attested to in the OED.

The Boston Globe also has an article on this - http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/theword/2009/11/a_concerning_us.html

A search of "is very concerning" in Google Books suggests it is especially used in medical contexts. - https://www.google.com/search?q=%22is%20very%20concerning%22&tbs=bks:1&lr=lang_en