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

Re: [Czechlist] Nebezpeci zachyceni!

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 14 , May 10, 2013
    View Source
    • 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 2 of 14 , May 10, 2013
      View Source
      • 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 3 of 14 , May 10, 2013
        View Source
        • 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 4 of 14 , May 10, 2013
          View Source
          • 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 5 of 14 , May 15, 2013
            View Source
            • 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.