Glossary entry (derived from question below)
French term or phrase:
SF VEGETAL
English translation:
except (for) plants
Added to glossary by
Peter Field
May 19, 2021 12:34
2 yrs ago
43 viewers *
French term
United Kingdom
21 yrs as a Translator/Editor from FR>EN
Native in: English (Variant: UK)
Works in: French to English
SF VEGETAL
French to English
Marketing
Business/Commerce (general)
Stand-alone sentence to translate, no other context
ECHANGE DES ARTICLES SOUS 8 JOURS SF VEGETAL
Proposed translations
(English)
| 4 +2 | except (for) plants |
Tony M
|
Change log
May 20, 2021 10:55: Rob Grayson changed "Edited KOG entry" from "<a href="/profile/62466">Peter Field's</a> old entry - "SF VEGETAL"" to ""SF = sans frais = free of charge""
Proposed translations
+2
1 hr
French term (edited):
SF végétal = sauf
Selected
except (for) plants
I'm pretty sure this makes a lot more sense!
It is common to exempt certain classes of products from free exchange policies — like underwear / swimwear / food products / software / games, soetimes for reasons of fraud, or hygiene: however, stating that an exchange is 'free of charge' seems like stating the obvious.
It is also very common indeed to explude things like plants from an exchange policy, as the retailer can't really accept responsibility for how they have been looked after since they left the shop!
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr (2021-05-19 14:18:32 GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------
Apologies to mchd, who suggested this in her discussion post, but declined to submit an actual answer; I has actually spontaneaously thought of this myself even before reading the discussion. If mchd would care to submit her own answer, I'll willingly delete mine; however, for the moment I'll let it stand, as we should at least have one correct answer recorded for the sake of future users!
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 7 hrs (2021-05-19 19:54:19 GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------
I don't really see that "sugar-free" would make any more sense here, arguably less.
1) If 'sans sucre' is commonly used in FR, why would they use a potentially confusing EN abberiviation, instead of the more usual FR one?
2) Why would anyone bother to specify that 'vegetal' (plants) were sugar free — this does not sound like some kind of vegetable food product that would be expected to have sugar in it anyway
3) Why go out of your way to invent a cumbersome and implausible explanation, where you have a perfectly good one already at hand, which does at least make logical sense.
4) In case you had any lingering doubt, do remember that 'sf' is a contraction very commonly used in commerce, just like 's/s' for 'with no' or 'av[c]' for 'with'
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 7 hrs (2021-05-19 19:56:53 GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------
Of course, the absence of proper meaningful context does make it to be as certain of this as I feel sure it merits; it would even help if we knew what line of business this was in. Do remember that 'végétal' doesn't normally mean simply 'légume'.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 7 hrs (2021-05-19 19:57:45 GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------
Dear Peter, there is no argument here! If a person chooses not to submit an answer, even when beseeched to, one can only assume they do not deign to do so — or are perhaps not sure enough of their suggestion to stick their neck out.
It is common to exempt certain classes of products from free exchange policies — like underwear / swimwear / food products / software / games, soetimes for reasons of fraud, or hygiene: however, stating that an exchange is 'free of charge' seems like stating the obvious.
It is also very common indeed to explude things like plants from an exchange policy, as the retailer can't really accept responsibility for how they have been looked after since they left the shop!
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr (2021-05-19 14:18:32 GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------
Apologies to mchd, who suggested this in her discussion post, but declined to submit an actual answer; I has actually spontaneaously thought of this myself even before reading the discussion. If mchd would care to submit her own answer, I'll willingly delete mine; however, for the moment I'll let it stand, as we should at least have one correct answer recorded for the sake of future users!
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 7 hrs (2021-05-19 19:54:19 GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------
I don't really see that "sugar-free" would make any more sense here, arguably less.
1) If 'sans sucre' is commonly used in FR, why would they use a potentially confusing EN abberiviation, instead of the more usual FR one?
2) Why would anyone bother to specify that 'vegetal' (plants) were sugar free — this does not sound like some kind of vegetable food product that would be expected to have sugar in it anyway
3) Why go out of your way to invent a cumbersome and implausible explanation, where you have a perfectly good one already at hand, which does at least make logical sense.
4) In case you had any lingering doubt, do remember that 'sf' is a contraction very commonly used in commerce, just like 's/s' for 'with no' or 'av[c]' for 'with'
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 7 hrs (2021-05-19 19:56:53 GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------
Of course, the absence of proper meaningful context does make it to be as certain of this as I feel sure it merits; it would even help if we knew what line of business this was in. Do remember that 'végétal' doesn't normally mean simply 'légume'.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 7 hrs (2021-05-19 19:57:45 GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------
Dear Peter, there is no argument here! If a person chooses not to submit an answer, even when beseeched to, one can only assume they do not deign to do so — or are perhaps not sure enough of their suggestion to stick their neck out.
Note from asker:
| My apologies to you, Tony, and all other responders for my over hasty decision. You are of course right that there should at least be one correct answer. I await the result of your arguments with interest. |
| I have received an interesting suggestion from another source and would welcome any comments: 'J’arrive peut-être après la bataille, mais je ne crois pas une seconde à « sans frais ». 'En revanche, en regardant le nombre de produits français portant sur leur étiquette « SF sans sucre », j’incline très fort à penser que « SF » signifie effectivement «sugar-free ».' My apologies again for my earlier abrupt decision - nothing that can't be rectified I hope. |
| Good morning Tony, I am convinced your answer is correct. How do I go about changing the glossary entry? |
| I've submitted a support request asking for the original grading of my question to be cancelled and the question re-opened. Thanks for the advice. |
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Discussion
Merci de cette vision à plus large spectre ! J'approuve totalement : apporter une aide est un acte gratuit sans aucune forme de compétition.
Thanks for correcting the glossary entry!
But after all, the only important thing is that the glossary entry is corrected, which either you or Peter can do yourselves with no outside involvement.
Even if you don't do all this, you as the Asker always have the right to edit the glossary entry below.
The only lesson to be taken is perhaps that it does often pay to wait, in case a better answer comes in. One often finds that certain types of people rush in quickly to win the points, only to feel slightly foolish later when upon further reflection, they can see they got it wrong. Luckily, Rob is a well respected long-standing contributor in this forum, and has the good grace to review his suggestion upon reflection.
Might be worth going back now, though, and correcting the glossary entry...?