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

Re: [Czechlist] Czech comma

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.