English term
Türkiye
Quality matters most!
Native in: Persian (Farsi)
Works in: English to Persian (Farsi), English, Persian (Farsi) to English
cabbage
I am translating a text in the field of "occupational safety" and hazardous substances. I don't make out what cabbage means here, as it is talking about chemical substances.
Thanks
| 4 +9 | garbage |
philgoddard
|
| 4 +6 | spillage |
Helena Chavarria
|
| 4 +5 | garbage |
Rainer Zawadzki
|
Mar 7, 2017 18:38: Edith Kelly changed "Level" from "PRO" to "Non-PRO"
Mar 9, 2017 11:37: acetran changed "Level" from "Non-PRO" to "PRO"
PRO (4): Charles Davis, Helena Chavarria, philgoddard, acetran
Non-PRO (3): Tony M, Cilian O'Tuama, Edith Kelly
When entering new questions, KudoZ askers are given an opportunity* to classify the difficulty of their questions as 'easy' or 'pro'. If you feel a question marked 'easy' should actually be marked 'pro', and if you have earned more than 20 KudoZ points, you can click the "Vote PRO" button to recommend that change.
How to tell the difference between "easy" and "pro" questions:
An easy question is one that any bilingual person would be able to answer correctly. (Or in the case of monolingual questions, an easy question is one that any native speaker of the language would be able to answer correctly.)
A pro question is anything else... in other words, any question that requires knowledge or skills that are specialized (even slightly).
Another way to think of the difficulty levels is this: an easy question is one that deals with everyday conversation. A pro question is anything else.
When deciding between easy and pro, err on the side of pro. Most questions will be pro.
* Note: non-member askers are not given the option of entering 'pro' questions; the only way for their questions to be classified as 'pro' is for a ProZ.com member or members to re-classify it.
Responses
United States
Six languages into flawless English
Native in: English
Works in: German to English, French to English, Spanish to English, and 4 more.
garbage
| Thanks for your help |
| Thanks for your help. |
| agree |
Jack Doughty
0 min
|
| agree |
Peter Nicholson (X)
2 mins
|
| agree |
Tony M
: Particularly if the doc comes from the US, as we don't use 'garbage' so much in GB.
4 mins
|
| agree |
Sabine Akabayov, PhD
10 mins
|
| agree |
Cilian O'Tuama
14 mins
|
| agree |
M.A.B.
1 hr
|
| agree |
acetran
7 hrs
|
| agree |
Yasutomo Kanazawa
12 hrs
|
| agree |
Ashutosh Mitra
20 hrs
|
United States
Chemical sciences/engineering
Native in: Spanish (Variant: Mexican) 
, English (Variant: US)
Works in: Spanish to English, English to Spanish, German to English, and 1 more.
garbage
| Thanks a lot |
| Thanks |
| agree |
M.A.B.
1 hr
|
| agree |
Tony M
1 hr
|
| agree |
acetran
6 hrs
|
| agree |
Yasutomo Kanazawa
11 hrs
|
| agree |
Ashutosh Mitra
19 hrs
|
Spain
Striving for excellence
Native in: English (Variant: British) 
Works in: Spanish to English, Catalan to English
spillage
CLEANER SANITISER
6. 2. Environmental precautions: Prevent liquid from entering sewers, watercourses, underground or low areas.
6. 3. Methods and material for containment and cleaning up:
Sweep up and shovel without dust, and dispose as normal cabbage.
After cleaning, flush traces away with water. Only small quantities.
6. 4. Reference to other sections: Concerning personal protective equipment to use, see item 8.
Concerning disposal elimination after cleaning, see item 13.
http://www.pva-hygiene.co.uk/images/Data Sheets /Disinfectan...
Please see the discussion box.
I really don't think safety standards for toxic substances would recommend getting rid of the substance 'as normal garbage'.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2 hrs (2017-03-07 19:21:24 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
RE EC/453/Version: 2010 - ISO 11014-1
6. ACCIDENTAL RELEASE MEASURES
6. 1. Personal precautions, protective Avoid dust formation equipment and emergency procedures: Avoid contact with skin, eyes, or clothing
6. 2. Environmental precautions: Prevent liquid from entering sewers, watercourses, underground or low areas.
6. 3. Methods and material for containment and cleaning up:
Sweep up and shovel without dust, and dispose as normal cabbage.
After cleaning, flush traces away with water. Only small quantities.
6. 4. Reference to other sections: Concerning personal protective equipment to use, see item 8.
Concerning disposal elimination after cleaning, see item 13.
http://www.jangro.net/downloads/coshh/Kitchen_Sanitiser_Sach...
http://www.jangro.net/downloads/coshh/Kitchen_Sanitiser_Sach...
| Thanks a lot |
| agree |
philgoddard
: I agree this is more likely, though I can't imagine how it evolved into "cabbage". // Maybe it's to check that people are still awake and have read the document properly.
14 mins
|
|
To make people laugh perhaps? Thank you, Phil! // LOL!
|
|
| agree |
Charles Davis
: I used to do the same when I had a compost heap :)
50 mins
|
|
Thank you, Charles :-) Incidentally, I put tatty cabbage leaves in my compost bin!
|
|
| neutral |
Tony M
: I still have very strong reservations; the reference you quote is very dubious in places, and seems to have been cobbled together; it also separately contains the word 'spillage'.
1 hr
|
|
Tony, thank you for your opinion ;-)
|
|
| agree |
Rachel Fell
: I'd say "dispose of as", but obviously it can't be cabbage or garbage - perhaps just a mistake that's unwittingly been carried over to later documents.
6 hrs
|
|
What started out as a seemingly simple question has become quite complex. Thank you, Rachel :-)
|
|
| agree |
acetran
6 hrs
|
|
Thank you, acetran!
|
|
| agree |
Yasutomo Kanazawa
11 hrs
|
|
Thank you, Yasutomo!
|
|
| agree |
Piyush Ojha
: Most likely.
1 day 16 hrs
|
|
Thank you very much :-)
|
Discussion
Just a thought
Yes, of course it would be reckless to suggest anything other than seeking clarification from the source — I feel sure all of us here took that for granted, as being the customary advice given to any asker in the absence of unambiguous context or other confirmatory details.
"Sweep up and shovel without dust, and dispose as normal cabbage.
After cleaning, flush traces away with water. Only small quantities"
This substance is clearly not all THAT hazardous, despite the apparently dire warnings!
Were it to be so, they would surely not be suggesting "sweep up" either — nor simply "flush traces away with water"; but it does specifically go on to say that it is only talking about "small quantities".
Safety advice is a serious matter, and I think it is a little reckless to brush aside the difficulties here and state confidently that they're saying this stuff, whatever it is (and we don't know) can effectively be flushed down the toilet with no qualms. Might it not be better to reserve judgement and ask for clarification?
I note that the document contains many anomalies, some downright curious EN, and seems to have been cobbled together from differing sources; I suspect the use of 'cabbage' in both documents I found probably arises from some foreign source — possibly the original country of manufacture of the specific chemical ingredient concerned.
However, the document also contains the word 'spillage' — it seems curious that one instance should be perfectly spelled, and another not so.
On the reverse consideration, there are a tiny handful of examples of "dispose [of] as normal garbage", but none at all with 'spillage'.
Then again, of course, we don't know what particular hazardous chemical Asker is dealing with here; no doubt there is other information on the same MSDS that would clarify that point.
Of course, I don't know that it's the same substance Morad's document is referring to, but it does seem likely, given that this is such a strange phrase (and the cabbage is not the only strange element, though certainly the strangest).
The only instances with "cabbage" are of dubious provenance, seemingly possibly even from non-native EN sources.
On the other hand, the Google search I performed (and yes, I am very well aware that different people in different countries will get different results!) did not return a single result for the exact collocations "dispose of as normal spillage" OR "dispose as normal spillage"
Equally, as a transcription error or speech-to-text dictation error, garbage > cabbage is an easy slip to make, whereas there is no phonetic similarity at all between spill- and cabb-.
Then again, from the sense of the phrase, 'sweep up and dispose [of] as normal garbage' makes perfect sense — if they are saying that a minor quantity of this substance may be considered as 'normal', i.e. not 'hazardous' waste. 'Spillage' often (but of course by no means exclusively!) suggests possibly a liquid, which you probably wouldn't be sweeping up, nor would it be likely to create dust. OK, I agree that something like a powder might also be said to be 'spilt'. But I'm not sure then we would most likely say 'dispose as normal spillage' — is the implication still 'normal' as distinct from 'hazardous'?
I think only the origin of this document can give any clue: IF it is US, then I think the 'garbage' theory is still the most plausible;if however we know for sure that this is NOT from the US, then I would agree it tends to rule it out.
I find Helena's arguments persuasive. To me, the strongest reason for not interpreting this as garbage, apart from the register (if they meant garbage they would say waste) is that there are surely hardly any chemical substances that should be disposed of as normal "garbage"; such advice is implausible.
Ok. thanks a million for the cue