This site uses cookies.
Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site,
while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.
For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
French to English translations [PRO] Tech/Engineering - Environment & Ecology / waste disposal
French term or phrase:tout venant
Yes I know this has been asked a few times before, but none of the answers seem to fit for me. The document is about eco-labelling for medical beds, and the particular section is about the percentage of the end-of-life bed that can be dismantled and recycled. The phrase in question is:
1.8 % de la masse du lit destinée au tout-venant, soit 2,64 kg.
It has already been established earlier in the document that:
1.7 % de la masse du lit non démontable, soit 2,45 kg
And I feel these two figures are not just coincidentally similar.
Sitreva gives the following as a definition for "tout venant" as a type of waste:
Ces déchets sont constitués de gros mobiliers, de matelas, de chutes de moquette, de plaques de placo-pâtre, …. Ils subissent un tri mécanique permettant d’extraire une part valorisable (métaux, petits matériaux incinérables, cartons, …). La fraction ultime, environ 60%, est évacuée vers une installation de stockage de déchets ménagers non dangereux.
I am currently playing around with a very vague translation, along the lines of "1.8% of the bed by weight goes to generic [land-fill]" but I need to make sure I'm not over-simplifying the situation.
I let this discussion run for a while because everyone has had interesting contributions to make, but this was the solution I used, since given the topic of the document I think it will be understood by English speakers as "general waste that doesn't fall into the other categories that can be recycled, and its not particularly relevant in this particular case how large or small it is" 4 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer
Precisely. Your references and explanations are in fact relevant for "bulky" not "bulk" so I have a problem with the use of "bulk" if it is to mean "bulky". "Bulk waste" may work, but "bulk waste" is not necessarily synonymous with "bulky waste". There is lack of coherence in the terms used and the explanations provided.
But "bulk waste" in English doesn't necessarily mean that all items are heavy or voluminous. It has a much more "general" meaning than its name implies. It's also that the objects are bit more awkward to handle to include lighter objects such as grass clippings, twigs, branches, etc. Again, not all definitions of "bulk waste" say the items have to be big and voluminous. This is in line with how "le tout-venant" is understood, too, imho.
Please see this page http://www.letswasteless.com/cms/recycling-centres/worcester... about my local tip; they use the term "General waste" for any waste that does not go into any of the waste that is handled separately. This seems to fit the French use of "tout-venant" in this context.
the option to post a reference comment is disabled once you have submitted an actual answer, in whcih case, you can add your reference comments as an 'added note' under your answer.
I have no reference post option for thsi one either.
When you go to a tip in France, the "tout-venant" takes anything that cannot go into a specific category or which is mixed. It can be nig and bulky, or small and light.
Some sources indicate that "tout-venant" is necessarily for voluminous items which are "encombrants", thus I agree that "bulky" would work there; but "bulky" not "bulk". There are a number of sources for "bulk waste" but this is a miuse of the word "bulk" as it should actually read "bulky".
"Bulk" waste, as with "bulk" cargo translates back as "en vrac". Indeed, "bulk waste" does seem to tie in with the meaning of "tout-venant" but as "bulk waste" seems to be used erroneously to mean "bulky waste", which "tout-venant" is not necessarily, then I would avoid it as a translation for that term.
I am not able to post a "Reference" (not sure why, but there is no option for me to do so like there sometimes is)
See this definition:
Les déchets "tout-venant" sont les déchets encombrants apportés en déchèteries ou collectés en porte-à-porte. Ils sont tous apportés sur le Quai de Transfert de Rambouillet et subissent un tri en vue d’une valorisation. Les 2 fractions importantes issues
Excess cardboard (emptied and flattened) Metal items (Refrigerators, washers, dryers, water heaters, patio furniture, fencing, grills, AC units, evaporative coolers, etc.) Electronics and small appliances (Computers, printers, televisions, stereos, microwaves, etc.) Bulk Items:
Tree trimmings and yard clippings (City Code, Chapter 44-6 states requirements for bulk collection) Broken, non-repairable furniture Broken, non-repairable toys Household trash and textiles
I think if we'd had the more complete extract we'd have picked up what is basically a simple grammatical error, more likely than not a typo, in the original. The "feeling" many of us had was not in line with the grammar. Confronting our readings ironed it out.
Yes BD Finch, you are right about "masse" ("mass/Weight") of the whole bed, the turnkey version, ready to go.
I think it is now clear that my reading was wrong (though it should be "destiné", not "destinée"). "Masse du lit" simply means the quantity of bed by weight rather than by volume. The 1.8% of that mass is clearly not recyclable scrap, so why not "non-recyclable general waste"?
www.york.ac.uk › ... › Infrastructure and services " Non recyclable general waste. Non recyclable, non hazardous waste from labs and offices. Electrical waste. Small & medium sized electrical ."
I presume they have used the word configuré because although the document is written by the bed manufacturer, it does obtain some of the parts from other suppliers, and the purchaser doesn't have to go with all the options, so it means the bed "when fully assembled with all options attached"
I created it myself using simple html, since all of Kudoz will process the code. Its not hard at all (would be happy to drop you an email explaining the code)
(Ooo! I did ask recently if it were technically possible to have a table insertion facility in KudoZ as we often seem to need it. Looks like it's been done! )
As to the context, yes, Wendy, I agree with you. I find that the tricky bit now is udnerstanding what they mean by "masse du lit"! As 98.2% of the "lit configuré" is apparently recyclable, then 1.8% seems to be bound for the "tout-venant". La "masse du lit" would seem to be synonymous with "lit configuré". 100% of wood, ferous and non-ferous metals are recycled, electroncis get specific treatment and 88.07% of the plastics are recycled.
I suppose "lit configuré" (and thus "la masse du lit") is to be read as being the bed as a whole.
<p>-Recyclabilité lit HR900 <p> <table> <tr><td>Element</td><td>% recycl. avec tri</td></tr> <tr><td>Lit configuré</td><td>98.2 </td></tr> <tr><td>Bois</td><td>100</td></tr> <tr><td>Métaux f.</td><td>100</td></tr> <tr><td>Métaux non f. </td><td>100</td></tr> <tr><td>Electron.</td><td>traitement spécifique</td></tr> <tr><td>Plastiques </td><td>88.07</td></tr> </table>
-> 1.8 % de la masse du lit destinée au tout-venant, soit 2,64 kg.<p>
I've removed a couple of the columns from the table just for ease of reproduction, but this is the essence and which I read unambiguously as 98.2% gets recycled, and 1.8% doesn't:
Given the reading many of us seem to have and the possibility that that reading is not supported by the grammar of the original, please would you psot your original phrase in fuller context? Could we have an extract of the original? The full paragraph? The sentence before/after? I suspect it will not change the translation of "tout-venant" (hyphen) but it would help get a better picture.
We can make intelligent guesses as to what the small percentage actually comprises, but it is neither here nor there. Indeed, it is almost irrelevant. The whole point is it is in the miscellaneous category. It cannot be classified into any existing specific category. We cannot invent what the French does not say, so the final bits 'n' bobs of that 1.8% are irrelevant. On the subject of categories, see my additional note to my post.
I think it's very important here to be careful in the assumptions we make about the intended meaning of 'tout-venant', as although the underlying notion is always the same, the actual intention of the term is heavily influenced by the context.
For example, in catering, foie gras that is described as 'tout venant' is basically second grade, suitable for general purpose use, but not for special purposes that may require first grade.
'Tout venant' is also used to refer to rubble or hardcore, in the specific sense of 'any old thing' — you often see signs saying that people want 'tout venant' for filling old excavations, building up sloping land, etc.
In domestic waste sorting over here, we have the various categories of separate waste, and then 'ordures ménagères', which means the left over miscellaneous stuff that can't be recycled (and is likely to go for incineration) — this category is broadly the same as the 'tout venant' category for larget-scale waste treatment.
What I can gather from the rest of the text is that 98.2% of each bed could be sorted and recycled, and this is made of ferrous and non-ferrous metal, wood, plastics and electronic components (its a medical bed with all the various doo-dahs to control angle, attach monitors etc.). It is the manufacturers' wish to fully dismantle the beds, selectively sort them and send all the bits off to their respective waste streams. What's then left is this 1.8%. Although it doesn't specifically state what is leftover after the sorting, it hints that it is largely from the "plastics" category (e.g. overmoulding of electric wires that can't be stripped)
It's important to consider the meaning of this term in context; the notion of 'tout venant' is that of 'as-it-comes', 'any old thing' — and as Nikki has said, very often implies something that simply does not fit into any of the main categories used e.g. for sorting prior to recycling; the reason for this may well, of course, be that it is 'mixed'.
In the case of this bed, with its 1.8%, it is clear that this must be the very small amount that is left over that cannot be classified as 'scrap metal', etc. etc.; hence the implication that this is probably the part that cannot be (economically!) recycled, which I'm sure is the tenor of this text.
Somehow I do not find general waste, bulk waste, other waste fits in the context. Scrap is a better word and fits the context much better. However, 1.8% of a bed cannot be scrap (it would be much higher). Also, I do not think this 1.8% goes into land-fill.
Explanation: I think this fits your context for the UK. In this case:
1.8% of the bed by weight is (for) general waste.
Carlos Segura United Kingdom Local time: 23:40 Works in field Native speaker of: Spanish, English PRO pts in category: 8
Grading comment
I let this discussion run for a while because everyone has had interesting contributions to make, but this was the solution I used, since given the topic of the document I think it will be understood by English speakers as "general waste that doesn't fall into the other categories that can be recycled, and its not particularly relevant in this particular case how large or small it is"