Trash terminology: a lexical near-merger?
Aug. 14th, 2013 06:53 pmToronto differentiates between three types of trash pickup:
Historically, at least where I grew up, garbage specifically denoted compostable food waste, and trash all other refuse. I didn't think I had acquired this contrast myself—I've always used garbage and trash basically interchangeably as far as I know—but I think my parents might and I'm pretty sure my grandparents did make this distinction. But I must have it at least to some extent, since the use of garbage to refer specifically to non-compostable waste makes me do a bit of a confused double-take. When I see a barrel in Toronto labeled "garbage only", I have to stop and think about what it means, which certainly wouldn't be the case if it said "trash only".
So what's going on here is apparently that I don't distinguish between food waste and non-food waste in my active vocabulary; but in my passive vocabulary, if such a semantic distinction is to be lexically made, I do know which is garbage. Toronto trash-barrel labeling does make that semantic distinction, but with the word garbage assigned to the wrong category, so it throws me off. (What I have seems a little bit like a lexical equivalent of what's referred to as a "near-merger" when it happens on the phonological level: I think I don't make a distinction, but I actually do?)
- recyclables
- compostable food waste, the "green bin"
- all other "garbage"
Historically, at least where I grew up, garbage specifically denoted compostable food waste, and trash all other refuse. I didn't think I had acquired this contrast myself—I've always used garbage and trash basically interchangeably as far as I know—but I think my parents might and I'm pretty sure my grandparents did make this distinction. But I must have it at least to some extent, since the use of garbage to refer specifically to non-compostable waste makes me do a bit of a confused double-take. When I see a barrel in Toronto labeled "garbage only", I have to stop and think about what it means, which certainly wouldn't be the case if it said "trash only".
So what's going on here is apparently that I don't distinguish between food waste and non-food waste in my active vocabulary; but in my passive vocabulary, if such a semantic distinction is to be lexically made, I do know which is garbage. Toronto trash-barrel labeling does make that semantic distinction, but with the word garbage assigned to the wrong category, so it throws me off. (What I have seems a little bit like a lexical equivalent of what's referred to as a "near-merger" when it happens on the phonological level: I think I don't make a distinction, but I actually do?)
no subject
Date: 2013-08-14 10:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-08-15 12:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-08-15 03:37 am (UTC)before learning others had the distinction, i just assumed ‘garbage disposal’ and ‘trash disposal’ would be synonymous, and you knew to only put food waste in it because (1) it was not up to the task of dealing with harder, less organic substances and (2) it was typically located in the middle of a food prep area, so other non-food types of organic waste would be gross to bring over there.
no subject
Date: 2013-08-15 03:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-08-15 11:07 am (UTC)