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

Re: [Czechlist] Nebezpeci zachyceni!

Expand Messages
  • James Kirchner
    Thanks, Jirka. The problem is that I see different nuances in all of those: Trap sounds like something is stuck there and not moving. Pinch sounds like you
    Message 1 of 14 , May 10, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks, Jirka. The problem is that I see different nuances in all of those:

      Trap sounds like something is stuck there and not moving.
      Pinch sounds like you get a little squeeze, say "ouch" and pull your appendage out.
      Entangle sounds like what would happen to long hair or clothes.

      When an arm is being continuously pulled in, it's trapped, but it's still moving, it's too large an appendage and there is too much continuous pressure and movement for it to be pinching, and an arm can't really be entangled less all the bones are broken and it's as flexible as a long strip of rubber.

      This is a tough nut to crack.

      Jamie

      On May 10, 2013, at 3:55 PM, Jirka Bolech wrote:

      > Hi Jamie,
      >
      > I've been translating safety alerts from English to Czech on a fairly regular basis and, besides trap or pinch suggested by Martin, I also se entangle while trap definitely dominates...
      >
      > Jirka
      >
      > _______________________________________________
      > Czechlist mailing list
      > Czechlist@...
      > http://www.czechlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/czechlist


      _______________________________________________
      Czechlist mailing list
      Czechlist@...
      http://www.czechlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/czechlist
    • James Kirchner
      This isn t exactly a pinching hazard, because the machine can actually pull you in and crush you, not just give you a pinch. Trapping implies too little
      Message 2 of 14 , May 10, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        This isn't exactly a pinching hazard, because the machine can actually pull you in and crush you, not just give you a pinch. Trapping implies too little motion. Snagging makes it sound like a hook. The crushing hazard comes after the pulling hazard. So I guess I'm just going to go with "pulling hazard".

        Thank you, Martin.

        Jamie

        On May 10, 2013, at 3:12 PM, Martin Janda wrote:

        > My TM suggests trapping/pinching hazard.
        >
        > HTH
        > Martin
        >
        >
        > Dne 10.5.2013 20:59, James Kirchner napsal(a):
        >>
        >> Can anyone give me suggestions as to the best word for "zachyceni" in
        >> the warning "Nebezpeci zachyceni!"?
        >>
        >> "Catching" is clearly not the right word, and I'm drawing a blank. I
        >> think in the factories we used to talk about a "snagging hazard", but
        >> that could also mean getting caught by a hook. We also talked about a
        >> "pulling hazard". Frankly we didn't talk about hazards much.
        >>
        >> Any suggestions will be appreciated.
        >>
        >> Jamie
        >>
        >
        > _______________________________________________
        > Czechlist mailing list
        > Czechlist@...
        > http://www.czechlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/czechlist


        _______________________________________________
        Czechlist mailing list
        Czechlist@...
        http://www.czechlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/czechlist
      • Jakub Skrebsky
        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,
        Message 3 of 14 , May 10, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          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@...> 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@...
          >> http://www.czechlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/czechlist
          >
          > _______________________________________________
          > Czechlist mailing list
          > Czechlist@...
          > http://www.czechlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/czechlist
          >
          >
          >


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



          ------------------------------------




          Yahoo! Groups Links
        • Pilucha, Jiri
          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
          Message 4 of 14 , May 10, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            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]
          • Jakub Skrebsky
            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
            Message 5 of 14 , May 10, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              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]
            • Pavel
              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
              Message 6 of 14 , May 15, 2013
              • 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]
                >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.