Can anyone please tell me what 'vstupovat subjekt' means? This is really stumping me. The sentence is: " co do namitky, ze na zalovane strane vystupoval subjekt, ktery ucastnikem rizeni byt nemohl, plati, ze zpusobila zalozit duvodnost ustavni stiznosti neni jiz zcela ocividne" here's my best effort: "With regard to the counterplea that a subject who could not be part of the proceedings took the stand as a defendant [?] , it is true that this counterplea served to establish the well-reasonedness of a constitutional complaint which was not yet entirely obvious.
Vstupovat or vystupovat? These are two verbs with opposite meaning. :wink: Vystupovat in your sentence means to figure/appear. The word subjekt is the grammatical subject. Terrible sentence. For the sake of clarity I will rewrite the individual clauses in subject-verb-object order: Main clause (ono) platí co do námitky as for the counterplea (objection, demurrer) it holds true Subordinate clause expanding the word "námitka" (že) subjekt vystupoval na žalované straně (that) a subject (subject of law, legal entity) figured as a defendant Subordinate clause expanding the word "subjekt" který nemohl být účastníkem řízení which could not (was not able/allowed to) be part of the proceedings Subordinate clause expanding the word "platí" (že) (ta námitka) není již zcela očividně způsobilá založit důvodnost ústavní stížnosti (že) (ta námitka) je již zcela očividně nezpůsobilá založit důvodnost ústavní stížnosti that the counterplea is entirely obviously incapable to establish the well-reasonedness (legitimacy) of the constitutional complaint My English translations follows the Czech logic. You have to reformulate it somehow in English. The last clause could be for example: It is entirely obvious that a constitutional complaint based on such an objection has no legitimacy.
It is entirely obvious that a constitutional complaint based on such an objection has no legitimacy.....Excellent......Very well formulated english sentence. It could also possibly be....That argument/objection is entirely incapable of establishing the legitimacy of the constitutional complaint. But, not being a lawyer, I have no idea what a constitutional complaint is... I'll take a guess and say the complaint questions whether something is constitutional.
Wow! Thank you mer, it's very good of you to smash that up and put it back together again properly. Firstly, sorry - I should of course have typed vYstupovat and thanks for pointing that out. You are right, it is a terrible sentence, and your final suggestion is excellent. Both you and scrimshaw consider that that "neni" makes "zpusobila" negative, which I have to say really confuses me. Can it really work like that? I am sorry to ask but I would have been convinced that it could only negativise that final clause. Is it following a particular rule? With your reformulations I came up with this (whilst sticking stubbornly to my reading of the "neni") - "as to the counterplea that a subject that was unable to be a part of the proceedings figured as a defendant, it holds true now that it is not entirely obvious that this counterplea was able to establish the legitimacy of the constitutional complaint" Which admittedly is still a tortuous sentence in English. I think I'll go for mer's far more elegant suggestion, but I wanted to at least have a model of the sentence that contained all the original Czech elements.
Markprophet, I didn't translate that sentence from czech to english, that is really advanced, I just sort of gave another option to Wer's english translation of your sentence.
No wonder you have no idea what it is, the term is meaningfull only in systems with separate constitutional court. Constitutional complaint is an address to the Constitutional Court in which a person claims that his own constitutional rights were violated by some act by a public authority. It is admissible if and only if no other legal remedy is left. Constitutional Court can invalidate the act and possibly also the law which was base for it, it can order the public authority to restore the original state or to decide once again in a different way, but it can't order which way. What final clause? The final clause with all unnecessary parts removed is: (žádost) není způsobilá How is it possible that one “není” in the Czech original turned into one “is not” and one “was” in your translation? There is only one conjugated verb in “způsobilá založit důvodnost ústavní stížnosti není již zcela očividně”. So what is the counterpart of your “was” in the Czech original? The verb “není” functions as a linking verb between the subject “žádost” and the adjective “způsobilá”. “Již zcela očividně” is only an unnecessary by comment in a form of adverbial of manner expanding the verb “není”. The “již” has no temporal meaning. The phrase “již zcela” means something like “most (completely) of all” which together with “očividně” makes another ugly phrase in English. I think one intensifier (e.g. completely, entirely) is enough in English.
Wer, you wrote....The “již” has no temporal meaning. The phrase “již zcela” means something like “most (completely) of all” which together with “očividně” makes another ugly phrase in English. I think one intensifier (e.g. completely, entirely) is enough in English. It doesn't really sound awkward. We can put two adverbs together too, but we would have switched them. It is obviously entirely incapable of ......... Constitutional complaint...Aha.....an individual rights issue. Podle mě, první deset dodátky na americkou ústávu je tohle, největší slova kdy stvořená. Zajistí pravice jedince a chrání ho před vládou, který se asi snaží růst příliš moc. Nepošlap na mě!...Don't tread on me!
Dear Wer, Thanks for that - I looked again and Zpusobila is of course an adjective, which explains why I was so completely confused by that sentence. At last I can see what it means. And thanks to scrimshaw for the good advice in English - you are right about there being no problem with two adverbs - "obviously entirely" is perfectly acceptable. Thanks to you both for looking at that!