garbage vs. trash

[Peter A. McGraw]

When I was a kid growing up in S. California in the 40s-early 50s, we made
the same distinction.  So did the local waste haulers:  the collection of
the two was strictly separated.  You had a trash can and a garbage can, and
if some food got in with your trash (paper, cans, etc.), or vice-versa,
they wouldn't take it.  I remember hearing at some point that now garbage
and trash would be put in the same container and collected together, but I
don't remember where I lived when this change took place.  Since then, it
has seemed to me that everywhere else I have lived, "trash" referred to all
refuse without distinction, and "garbage" was mostly relegated to
figurative usage (though I've never heard of the unit in the sink referred
to as a *"trash disposal").  I personally have never quite adjusted to this
amalgamation.

Peter Mc.

--On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 9:48 AM -0600 "Robert S. Wachal"
<robert-wachal at UIOWA.EDU> wrote:

> For me, trash contains no foodstuff. and garbage is only foodstuff.  Note
> 'garbage disposal'.
>
> Bob Wachal
>
> At 10:03 AM 1/22/01 EST, you wrote:
>> Is there regional distribution in the use of "garbage" vs "trash," as in
>> cans or the contents thereof? FWIW, DARE has no entry for "garbage." -
>> Allan Metcalf
>>
>>



****************************************************************************
                               Peter A. McGraw
                   Linfield College   *   McMinnville, OR
                            pmcgraw at linfield.edu