# eating utensil



## Santiago Jorge

How do we say this in Spanish? I know that "cubierto" is used for the whole individual setting (knife, spoon, fork, napkin, etc.), but how does one refer to any one of those first three, such as in the sentence I must translate here below?

"You must bring an eating utensil for the baby."

Mi intento:
«Deberá traer un utensilio de comer para el bebé».

I would appreciate any additional needed corrections . . ..


----------



## Oldy Nuts

I don't know; considering that we are talking of a baby, I would be inclined to say something like "un utensilio para alimentar al bebé".


----------



## Andoush

¿Y no se tratará de una simple "cuchara para bebés"?


----------



## gotasdeoro

Aquí diríamos 'cubierto': deberá traer los cubiertos / un cubierto para el bebé


----------



## Oldy Nuts

Hace tantas décadas que no me toca atender bebés que ya estoy olvidado pero, según la edad de éste, ¿no podría tratarse de un biberón, que no es un cubierto?


----------



## mayo76

gotasdeoro said:


> Aquí diríamos 'cubierto': deberá traer los cubiertos / un cubierto para el bebé



 Suena raro, porque si es bebé solo utiliza la cuchara. Pero sí, es cubierto.


----------



## Santiago Jorge

Gracias a todos por su ayuda.

Pienso usar "cubierto" aunque suena raro. ¿Qué más que puedo hacer?


----------



## Oldy Nuts

mayo76 said:


> Suena raro, porque si es bebé solo utiliza la cuchara. Pero sí, es cubierto.



Estaba esperando que alguna madre experimentada respondiera mi pregunta, pero como eso no ha ocurrido, voy a reformularla basándome en tu afirmación.

¿Estás descartando que el "utensilio" pueda ser un biberón, o estás diciendo que un biberón también es un cubierto?

Otra acotación. Tratándose de instrucciones, yo prefiero que sean tan claras que no dejen margen para interpretaciones erróneas (o casi, porque nunca falta la persona que rompe todos los esquemas). De modo que, considerando todo lo que dice el DRAE sobre "cubierto"

http://buscon.rae.es/draeI/SrvltConsulta?TIPO_BUS=3&LEMA=cubierto

¿no sería mejor explicitar? Después de todo, las opciones no son muchas (casi apostaría que son dos como máximo). Y esto, sin olvidar que la mejor traducción no es siempre la literal...


----------



## Oldy Nuts

Santiago Jorge said:


> Gracias a todos por su ayuda.
> 
> Pienso usar "cubierto" aunque suena raro. ¿Qué más que puedo hacer?



Usar alguna de las siguientes:

un utensilio (apropiado) para dar de comer/alimentar al bebé.
una cuchara.
un biberón o una cuchara, según la edad.
Un biberón o una cuchara.

Y me queda la duda si los platos están o no incluidos en el espíritu de la instrucción inicial.


----------



## Andoush

Estoy totalmente de acuerdo con Oldy Nuts en que las instrucciones deben ser claras. A mí no me termina de quedar claro, en inglés, si se trata de cubiertos para que el bebé se alimente solo (o aprenda a alimentarse), si se trata de un biberón o de una cuchara para darle de comer al bebé, si se trata de una cuchara y de un platito de plástico, etc.


----------



## Santiago Jorge

Todo esto viene de las instrucciones que se dan a la madre o tutor legal que piensa traer a un bebé a visitar a su padre encarcelado. Pueden traer comida si está en el envase cerrado, original del fabricante, junto con el utensilio adecuado para comerla.


----------



## Oldy Nuts

En este caso, pienso que me quedaría con "cuchara (apropiada)". Y habría sido mejor si hubieras dado el contexto desde el inicio.


----------



## mayo76

Oldy Nuts said:


> En este caso, pienso que me quedaría con "cuchara (apropiada)". Y habría sido mejor si hubieras dado el contexto desde el inicio.



Pues sí, mejor el contexto desde el inicio.

Entonces yo ampliaría la traducción dando todas las indicaciones:

"Deberá traer tanto la comida del bebé como el cubierto o biberón necesario."

Y si no tiene por qué llevar comida, que lo dudo porque en casi ningún sitio tienen "menú" de bebé, y menos en prisión ( al menos yo no he visto ninguno), pondría:

"Deberá traer el cubierto o biberón del bebé".

Es una sugerencia, ampliar la traducción. Un saludo.


----------



## LoganLockwood

> Es una sugerencia, ampliar la traducción. Un saludo.



Una sugerencia fantástica. Porque ciertamente no se puede generalizar cuando de bebés se trata. Dependiendo de la edad pueden no usar un cubierto, sino un biberón. Y aún a una edad determinada, no todos los bebés comen de la misma forma.

Me gustó la sugerencia:



> Deberá traer tanto la comida del bebé como el cubierto o biberón necesario.


----------



## mayo76

> *LoganLockwood*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Senior Member



Gracias. Un saludo.


----------



## k-in-sc

A bottle is not an eating utensil. The utensil used to feed a baby is a spoon. So say that.


----------



## Oldy Nuts

If it is the only utensil suitable for feeding a very young baby, why not?

Form dictionary.com:

*u·ten·sil*


noun

1.any of the instruments or vessels commonly used in a kitchen, dairy, etc.: eating utensils; baking utensils.
...


----------



## Moritzchen

How about a straw or a sippy-cup?
I was thinking breasts, but then,  I´m a cannibal.


----------



## k-in-sc

Drinking is not eating. Eating utensils are forks, spoons and knives. You don't feed a baby with forks or knives. That leaves spoons.


----------



## Neo1961

I agree with Oldy Nuts, would be different if it were table utensils, in this case spoon, fork and knife.


----------



## Moritzchen

Eating involves chewing.
Babies don't eat, they get fed.


----------



## k-in-sc

You don't have to chew to eat. Babies who aren't on solid food yet eat. People with their jaws wired shut eat.
The original says "You must bring an *eating utensil* for the baby." It could not be more unambiguous.


----------



## ribran

Babies/infants can use those small plastic forks to feed themselves.


----------



## Moritzchen

The unambiguity of the original does not make it right.
I really care little about all this but the dict. explains that to eat you ingest, chew, and swallow.
And if they wanted a spoon, why didn't they ask for it specifically instead of using utensil?
If you look for baby + eating utensil you'll find some pages that talk about baby bottles, sippy-cups and straws.


----------



## k-in-sc

They make little rounded-off forks for toddlers, but if the parents are only sending one eating utensil, it's not going to be a fork, it's going to be a spoon. Can you think of a food a baby can't eat without a fork? No, because they just pick it up with their hands anyway.
An eating utensil is not a cup or bottle. A cup or bottle is not an eating utensil. Hope everybody is clear on that now.


----------



## mayo76

k-in-sc said:


> Drinking is not eating. Eating utensils are forks, spoons and knives. You don't feed a baby with forks or knives. That leaves spoons.



The bottle is the most important utensil feeding for a newborn baby. How do you suggest to feed a newborn baby? 
Then combine the bottle with a spoon first, and then fork and knife.

We're not doing an accurate translation. But read the context. It's an informative document and I suggested to extend it to avoid mistakes.

Un saludo.


----------



## k-in-sc

Because it says "eating utensil" and a bottle is not a utensil, as I may have mentioned ... several times.


----------



## LoganLockwood

> It's an informative document and I suggested to extend it to avoid mistakes.


I insist this is the way to go.

This entire discussion is the one they avoided by using and ambiguous term; so I believe a comprehensive rendering is due.


> *Originally posted by **mayo76*
> Deberá traer tanto la comida del bebé como el cubierto o biberón necesario.



let's remember it's a prison. They will not have all that is necessary to feed a baby, and letting it starve doesn't seem much as an option (check this last phrase grammar, please).


----------



## Moritzchen

Does the bowl qualify as a utensil?


----------



## duvija

mayo76 said:


> "Deberá traer tanto la comida del bebé como el cubierto o biberón necesario*s*."
> 
> Y.


----------



## Oldy Nuts

k-in-sc said:


> Drinking is not eating. Eating utensils are forks, spoons and knives. You don't feed a baby with forks or knives. That leaves spoons.



My dear K, if I understand correctly what dictionary.com says, _eating_ includes the ingestion of non chewable foods:

*eat.*
verb (used with object) 1. to take into the mouth and swallow for nourishment; chew and swallow (food).

And in my previous quotation, _utensils_ explicitly include vessels...


----------



## k-in-sc

If they had meant "bottle" they would have said "bottle." "*Eating* utensils" are forks, spoons and knives.
That meaning is crystal clear to native speakers.
People with babies know they need to carry bottles and diapers with them. You don't have to tell them.


----------



## duvija

k-in-sc said:


> If they had meant "bottle" they would have said "bottle." "*Eating* utensils" are forks, spoons and knives.
> That meaning is crystal clear to native speakers.
> People with babies know they need to carry bottles and diapers with them. You don't have to tell them.



What about 'silverware'? what's the difference between 'silverware' and 'utensils'? remember, languages don't have really identical synonyms. Is one more uppity than the other? Would you consider barbeque 'things' utensils? (like long forks, spatulas, tongs, etc.). As in "íf you plan to have a hamburger, bring your own" serving spoon...


----------



## k-in-sc

*Kitchen* utensils are not the same as *eating* utensils. You guys keep missing that point.
"Silverware" suggests at least a complete place setting, if not the entire set. And if the baby's spoon is plastic, then "silverware" isn't a very appropriate term.


----------



## Oldy Nuts

k-in-sc said:


> If they had meant "bottle" they would have said "bottle." "*Eating* utensils" are forks, spoons and knives.
> That meaning is crystal clear to native speakers.
> People with babies know they need to carry bottles and diapers with them. You don't have to tell them.



And if they had meant "spoon" they would have said "spoon"? As I understand it, these are instructions for people that most probably have not received a higher education, and therefore it should be made crystal clear for them that the instruction does *not* include forks or knives.

And, considering the target population, perhaps they _should_ be told if carrying bottles and diapers is allowed or not...


----------



## k-in-sc

Because everyone knows what an eating utensil is. It's not that complicated.


----------



## Moritzchen

Ya no sé.
We are going in circles because some underpaid but ambitious bureaucrat decided that "utensil" was more formal than "feeding spoon".


----------



## Oldy Nuts

k-in-sc said:


> Because everyone knows what an eating utensil is. It's not that complicated.



Yes, you have said several times what you understand by that, although we don't agree in the exact meaning: *forks, spoons and knives*. What do you think would be the reaction of a prison warden (not sure if this is the correct word) if a mother tried to get in carrying a fork and a knife?

Pleaso, let's not forget the _context_.


----------



## mayo76

Oldy Nuts said:


> Yes, you have said several times what you understand by that, although we don't agree in the exact meaning: *forks, spoons and knives*. What do you think would be the reaction of a prison warden (not sure if this is the correct word) if a mother tried to get in carrying a fork and a knife?
> 
> Pleaso, *let's not forget the context*.


----------



## k-in-sc

k-in-sc said:


> Drinking is not eating. Eating utensils are forks, spoons and knives. You don't feed a baby with forks or knives. That leaves spoons.


----------



## Oldy Nuts

K, for this once and with all due respect, I would say that you are behaving as if your avatar was a photo of yourself. You don't seem to be listening and so we have to keep going back and starting over. Have you noticed that the sentence is supposed to be instructions for visitors to people _in a prison_? Would you seriously expect those visitors to understand an ambiguous instruction the way many people -not all- would understand? Do you really believe that they would understand that they are _not_ allowed to bring forks or knives?

You seem to be forgeting that word-to-word translations are not always the best translations. If they were, these forums would be a waste; Google would suffice.

No offence intended, and I still love you...


----------



## k-in-sc

It doesn't matter that it's for a prison. It's plain English, and a bottle is not an eating utensil in prison or outside of prison. It says "utensil," singular, and babies don't need forks and knives. If you somehow know that the term actually was intended to include bottles, then they used the wrong term. I can't help that.
Surely you guys' energy would be better spent in threads where you were clear on the meaning of the term at hand ...


----------



## mayo76

k-in-sc said:


> It doesn't matter that it's for a prison. It's plain English, and a bottle is not an eating utensil in prison or outside of prison. It says "utensil," singular, and babies don't need forks and knives. If you somehow know that the term actually was intended to include bottles, then they used the wrong term. I can't help that.
> Surely you guys' energy would be better spent in threads where you were clear on the meaning of the term at hand ...




Seriously?  It doesn't matter the context ?  I'm done. Google's enough.


----------



## k-in-sc

The context is always good to know, but in this case it doesn't change anything.
See you around ...


----------



## Oldy Nuts

K, I give up. If the original had said "*b*eating utensil", would you have been equally literal in your translation?

These are instructions for visitors to people in prison, translated for persons who do not speak well the local language!!!


----------



## k-in-sc

The English version is for native English speakers, who, whether they are visiting a prison or not, understand "eating utensil" the same as anybody else. The meaning is transparent. I don't think it's the translator's job to turn "eating utensil" into a laundry list of things Spanish speakers should bring or not bring.


----------



## duvija

k-in-sc said:


> The English version is for native English speakers, who, whether they are visiting a prison or not, understand "eating utensil" the same as anybody else. The meaning is transparent. I don't think it's the translator's job to turn "eating utensil" into a laundry list of things Spanish speakers should bring or not bring.



Really? no chains, no saws, no large knives? Oh, the injustice...


----------



## Oldy Nuts

k-in-sc said:


> The English version is for native English speakers, who, whether they are visiting a prison or not, understand "eating utensil" the same as anybody else. The meaning is transparent. I don't think it's the translator's job to turn "eating utensil" into a laundry list of things Spanish speakers should bring or not bring.



No, that's certainly not the translator's job. But if it is trasparent for him/her that intendend meaning is "spoon", s/he _should_ write "cuchara", and not "cubiertos" or "utensilios para comer".

And if you insist in saying the last word, even if it is repeating the same argument again, that's your privilege.


----------



## jasminasul

It never hurts to give the whole paragraph in cases like this. I´m probably being thick but if this were my translation I would use the hypernym, "utensil", since that´s what the original says, and I would make sure to check with my client. 
What I don´t understand is if it´s obvious that forks and knifes are not allowed, why does it say "utensilio"?. I think the problem here is the original, not the translation.
The other thing is that prisoners make weapons with spoons as well (armas chizas).


----------



## k-in-sc

It's true that they could make a shiv out of a baby spoon. They also could conceivably make one out of shards of a plastic bottle or cup. Probably whatever people bring has to be checked in and out.


----------



## Moritzchen

Armas chizas and shivs?
Puntas and shanks in our local five-star prison system.


----------



## k-in-sc

From urbandictionary:




Shiv*195* up, *42* downhttp://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=shived#http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=shived#A Home Made Knife made out of Anything but metal. Not to be confused with a Shank (a home made knife made of metal). 

Shivs are usually made of Glass, Wood, or Scrap Plastic 



I was unaware of the difference myself, not having spent a lot of time in prison.


----------



## Santiago Jorge

I have been gone and am just now seeing how lively this thread has been in my absence: far more than I would have ever imagined . . ..

Many of the entries had good points—that babies use spoons; that context is important, and so on. I think the comment I enjoyed the most was the one that pointed out that we are unfortunately dealing with bureaucratic language here, which all too often give us translators more headaches than clarity. 

I have decided to go with «un utensilio para comer» for the following reasons:

The broader context talks about bringing baby food in "the manufacture's original, sealed container." For the average person living in the United States, this would lead one to think of the puree food (not drinkable) that comes in a glass jar with a sealed lid that screws off: much like the very well known Gerber brand baby food. Further, while I believe most people would understand that the specific eating utensil for a baby would have to be a spoon (both for they baby's protection and for the simple fact that using a spoon is simply the easiest way to eat puree), we have to respect the ambiguous, bureaucratic language as it is, and simply understand that there is no commonly used equivalent in Spanish.

Finally, whenever we native English speakers refer to "eating utensils," the first, default, images that come to mind are forks, knives, and spoons, whether they be made with plastic, metal, or wood (not counting nonfunctional artistic renditions of these things). In a broader context, I believe we would include chop sticks as eating utensils too. We native English speakers never consider bottles, bowls, etc., as utensils because these are containers for food, and eating utensils are not about “containing” the food but rather being highly manipulable extensions of the hand (“tools”) facilitating the eating thereof.

Thank you to one and all for your help on this.


----------



## k-in-sc

Now I'm wondering whether you should say "un utensilio para darle de comer al bebé" since they don't feed themselves with utensils until they are old enough to eat food that doesn't come in jars.


----------

