Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

51620Re: Czech comma

Expand Messages
  • Pavel
    May 15 5:48 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Ja bych si dovolil podotknout, ze tam carka musi byt, protoze carkou oddelujeme vety podrazene od vet nadrazenych. S "nez" to tedy nijak nesouvisi, nejde o souradne spojene vety, kde by se mohlo pripadne jednat o mnohonasobny prisudek. U spojky podradici "aby", resp. v tomto pripade u spojovaciho vyrazu "misto aby" ani jina moznost nepripada v uvahu.

      Pavel

      --- In Czechlist@yahoogroups.com, Jakub Skrebsky <jakub.skrebsky@...> wrote:
      >
      > yes, I am convinced that the comma must be there.
      > Par. 2 Pozn. 2 raises the problem of distinction between a multiple predicate and another clause. And you can often replace "misto aby " with "nez aby" . But the main argument is, as you rightly say, that the relationship between the two clauses is contrasting (I found a term "contrast conjunction" for "spojka odporovaci") and therefore must be preceded by a comma.
      >
      > Jakub
      >
      >
      > On 10 May 2013, at 21:50, Pilucha, Jiri wrote:
      >
      > Jakube, why do you think it allows leaving the comma out?
      > It talks exclusively about spojka "nez".
      > There is no "nez" in Charlie's sentence
      > The comma totally needs to be there
      > Jiri
      >
      > From: Czechlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Czechlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jakub Skrebsky
      > Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 10:45 PM
      > To: Czechlist@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: Re: [Czechlist] Czech comma
      >
      > this gun should be big enough:
      >
      > http://www.pravidla.cz/vice/clenici-znamenka/?kapitola=11
      > kapitola A (carka v souveti)
      > ostavec 1
      > odstavec 2 Pozn 1
      >
      > Although, Pozn. 2, in fact, allows leaving the comma out.
      >
      > Jakub
      >
      > On 10 May 2013, at 21:01, Charles Stanford wrote:
      >
      > Thanks to all 3 of you - Jiri, Jaroslav and Zuzana. Strangely the
      > proofreader (who is Czech) was insisting that there was nothing wrong with
      > leaving it out, so I needed some big guns to confirm.
      >
      > On 10 May 2013 21:14, Zuzana Benesova <czechlist@...<mailto:czechlist%40czechlist.org>> wrote:
      >
      > > **
      > >
      > >
      > > In fact, you will need another comma after "odpovidal" to mark the end of
      > > the second clause. That is unless there is a full stop there :-)
      > >
      > > Zuzka
      > >
      > > 10. 5. 2013 v 20:51, Charles Stanford:
      > >
      > >
      > >> Sorry if this is a bit of an uninspiring question but please could a
      > > Czech
      > >> NS confirm whether or not there should be a comma after cte in the
      > >> following:
      > >> "napr. pokud slova cte misto aby odpovidal"
      > >
      > >> Thanks
      > >> Charlie
      > >>
      > >>
      > >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >>
      > >>
      > >>
      > >> ------------------------------------
      > >>
      > >>
      > >>
      > >>
      > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
      > >>
      > >>
      > >>
      > >>
      > >> _______________________________________________
      > >> Czechlist mailing list
      > >> Czechlist@...<mailto:Czechlist%40czechlist.org>
      > >> http://www.czechlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/czechlist
      > >
      > > _______________________________________________
      > > Czechlist mailing list
      > > Czechlist@...<mailto:Czechlist%40czechlist.org>
      > > http://www.czechlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/czechlist
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    • Show all 14 messages in this topic