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

Re: VERY dangerous translation!

Expand Messages
  • kzgafas
    Zdroj je OSHA, takze odkaz je verohodny. K. ... room ... flammable ... heated. ... flammable ... here ... have ... pretty ... combustible ... ... and
    Message 1 of 62 , Sep 5, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Zdroj je OSHA, takze odkaz je verohodny.

      K.


      --- In Czechlist@yahoogroups.com, "spektrum2002" <padamek@...> wrote:
      >
      > Googlovanim jsem nasel nekoli, definic, z nichz se mi nejvic libi
      tahle:
      > # Flammable liquids have flash points below 100oF, and are more
      > dangerous than combustible liquids, since they may be ignited at
      room
      > temperature
      > # Combustible liquids have flash points at or above 100oF
      > # Although combustible liquids have higher flash points than
      flammable
      > liquids, they can pose serious fire and/or explosion hazards when
      heated.
      > Petr Adamek
      > --- In Czechlist@yahoogroups.com, "kzgafas" <kzgafas@> wrote:
      > > Also as Matej says, he is right that there is an issue with
      flammable
      > > vs. combustible. They are two different things. I talked about it
      > > with an expert time ago, but did not make notes to deliver it
      here
      > > responsibly.
      > >
      > > K.
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In Czechlist@yahoogroups.com, "Matej Klimes" <mklimes@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Note that in fire safety, terms like horlavy and nehorlavy may
      have
      > > different meanings from what an ordinary person might think they
      > > have, and there are other words to be considered, google for
      > > flammable vs. combustible, the first link that commes up is
      pretty
      > > good:
      > > >
      > > > Don''t get burned--know the limits of flammable and
      combustible ...
      > > > - [ Prelozit tuto stránku ]
      > > > Flammable vs. combustible. The words "flammable"
      and "combustible"
      > > have very specific meaning within the context of fire prevention
      and
      > > suppression. ...
      > > > goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-2251254_ITM - 25k -
      Archiv -
      > > Podobné stránky
      > > >
      > > > M
      > > >
      > > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > > From: James Kirchner
      > > > To: Czechlist@yahoogroups.com
      > > > Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 5:46 PM
      > > > Subject: [Czechlist] VERY dangerous translation!
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Folks --
      > > >
      > > > I've been repairing some botched Czenglish translations, and
      I
      > > have
      > > > run into a very, very dangerous misuse of a word that I think
      > > > translators should be aware of. Both native and non-native
      > > English
      > > > speakers are liable make this mistake.
      > > >
      > > > First, the correct information:
      > > >
      > > > "flammable" = "inflammable" = horlavy
      > > >
      > > > "nonflammable" = nehorlavy
      > > >
      > > > Be aware that the word "inflammable" does NOT
      mean "nehorlavy".
      > > It
      > > > means "horlavy", just as "flammable" does. In this case the
      > > prefix
      > > > "in-" is not negation, but is approximately equivalent to the
      > > Czech
      > > > prefix "do-". In other words, "inflammable" means that
      something
      > > can
      > > > easily be put IN FLAMES.
      > > >
      > > > To compound the problem, the online dictionary slovnik.cz has
      an
      > > entry
      > > > that says "inflammable" means "nehorlavy" in the US, but it
      > > doesn't.
      > > > Seven US dictionaries I've checked give definitions
      > > meaning "horlavy",
      > > > and none give the opposite.
      > > >
      > > > This false understanding of the word "inflammable" is so
      > > widespread
      > > > that US law forbids its use in product information and
      requires
      > > > "flammable" for the "horlavy" meaning and "nonflammable" for
      the
      > > > "nehorlavy" meaning.
      > > >
      > > > About half my US-born university students understand the word
      > > wrong.
      > > >
      > > > Just a heads-up. Don't want anyone to end up in court.
      > > >
      > > > Jamie
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > > >
      > >
      >
    • James Kirchner
      Thanks, Josef and Gerry. My hunch is now that this abbreviation is, in fact, document specific and doesn t call for translation. Jamie ... [Non-text portions
      Message 62 of 62 , Sep 6, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Thanks, Josef and Gerry. My hunch is now that this abbreviation is,
        in fact, document specific and doesn't call for translation.

        Jamie

        On Sep 6, 2008, at 3:15 AM, Josef Hlavac wrote:

        > This is most likely a very specific jargon or a document-specific
        > abbreviation. Maybe even a brand/model designation. Certainly not a
        > commonly recognized abbreviation, not even in elec engineering.
        >
        > Josef
        >
        > James Kirchner wrote:
        > > Can anyone tell me what "DM" stands for in "DM ovladac" in an
        > > electrical appliance?
        > >
        > > Thanks.
        > >
        > > Jamie
        > >
        > >
        > > ------------------------------------
        > >
        > > Translators' tricks of the trade:
        > > http://czeng.wetpaint.com/
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Yahoo! Groups Links
        > >
        > >
        > >
        >
        >



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.