"Snoopy": MOHLI BYCHOM TU PROSÍM MÍT ANGLICKÝ DISKUZNÍ KLUB?

could someone please translate the following into czech please
COULD WE HAVE AN ENGLISH SPEAKING BOARD IN HERE PLEASE

Pedro Martínez: thanks

"Snoopy": I'd say that thanks to Snoopy this tourney will be quite long.

Bych rekl, ze diky Snoopy se tenhle turnaj protahne :

mybirthdaysoon: czech

"Snoopy": What language is that

Fencer: all i know Grim Reaper asked me to put it on here for a translation

"Snoopy": Maybe if you give us the author's name, we could make him to translate it himself. It's definitely not an easy job to do.

Pedro Martínez: i was asked to put it on here so i know nothing about it really

"Snoopy": I will translate it, but for 33 pounds.....................

.kapitola – Krvavý Osud

Bez varování se dostavili na naši planetu Zemi a zabrali ji. Jaké zlo nám zničilo svobodný život? Byl to odporný národ smradlavých Skreků, jenž se dostavil z dalekého Vesmíru a podrobil si všechno živé i neživé. I nevelká skupina Elefartů, stvořená v laboratořích, podlehla jeho krutovládě. A to se všude vždycky proslýchalo, že jsou to nepřemožitelní kouzelníci. Již však kouzlit nedovedli a jediné, co jim zůstalo, byl ten prapodivný vzhled. Kůži měli barvy zamračených nebes, hlavu nepokrýval žádný vlas, ústa, jak od velblouda poděděná a na jejich končetinách byly jen tři prsty. Ovšem nebyly tak nevinné, jak se na první pohled mohlo zdát. Vyrůstaly na nich dosti silné nehty, jenž mohly i zabíjet. A proto každý den se nechaly otupovat. Pak teprv byly bezbranné jako luční kvítí.
Mezi Elefarty patřil i Eglas. Ten se skupinkou sta Elefartů pracoval v jedné veliké továrně vyrábějící masové produkty. Zdrojem pro tyto produkty byly nejrůznější nestvůry. Mezi ty nejnebezpečnější patřili obří Pavokleti, jenž budili vždy a všude respekt. Až na Skreky se jich všichni báli. Však považte - místo rukou čtyři krabí klepeta, při útoku maximálně smrtící, dále osm pavoučích noh, jenž rychlé i šedesát km za hodinu, a na konec ta jejich huba, ve které byly zuby ostré jako břitva.
Zpět k našemu Eglovi. Chudý to život měl a ještě chudší myšlenky. Na nic jiného nemyslel, než na svoji práci. Den co den se brodil v hnoji a věděl, že další den to bude stejné. Ke konci shnije ve špíně. Ta špína, to jen šichta dlouhá, při níž čistil chovné klece. Pak krmil zvěř, tu z hrůzou zíral, krmivem byly lidské části. Co dál se ještě stane?
Jeden den to prozradil. Každý večer měl ještě Eglas zajít do skladu, kam sváželi čerstvé maso ke zpracování. Ejhle, on tam neměl býti. Jeho směna odpadla. Bylo to už týden napsané na nástěnce, na kterou se však nepodíval. Nyní Skrekové nestáli o to, aby sudy s masem odnášeli Elefarti. A měli hodně vážný důvod. Ve skladě stála opuštěná dodávka, od níž se táhnul nesnesitelný smrad. Kromě toho smradu tam nikdo jiný nebyl. Stráž hlídající sklad si jistojistě odběhla dát sklenku rumu. Eglas se ještě jednou porozhlédnul kolem a pak šel očíhnout dodávku. Vevnitř spatřil haldu sudů a pak jeden, ze kterého čouhala něčí noha. To nebyla noha nějaké nestvůry, ani noha obyčejného člověka. Toť Elefartí noha. Eglas jasně rozpoznal ty tři prsty, z nichž vyrážely silné nehty. Již byly celkem dlouhé. Teď došel mu ten zápach. To není vážně čerstvé maso. Zabiti jsou pěkně dlouho. Co proboha se stalo? Jakási nehoda či úmyslné zavraždění? Eglovi vyhrkly slzy. Ta lítost ho proměnila v kámen. Stál tam bez pohnutí a smáčel se v žalu.
Náhlé zvuky, praskl kámen. Eglas slyšel příchod stráží. Jasné bylo, že být tu neměl. Co dělat on však nevěděl. Hlavní brána, kterou sem do skladu přijížděly dodávky s masem, byla zavřená. I cesta zpět znemožněná. Tou cestou šli sem Skrekové. Možnost snad jen dodávka. Eglas zkusil zadní dveře. Uspěl, štěstí stálo při něm. Vlezl dovnitř a schoval se mezi sudy. Teď smrad pocítil ještě větší. Ty těla se tu rozkládali snad už dobrý měsíc. Zanedlouho se Skrekové dostavili do skladu. Znát byla jejich opilost. Na nohou tu sotva stáli. Však nebyli tak na dně, aby nezahlédli cosi lesklého válejícího se na zemi blízko dodávky. Eglas si teď náhle všimnul, že ztratil svůj malý kovový klíček. Takový klíček měl každý Elefart. Byl to důkaz toho, že je to obyčejný otrocký lejno. Jeden ze Skreků ten klíček pozvednul a přečetl z něj číslo 17. Nějaké hovínko teď není v cele. Hned vyrazili oba dveře dodávky a vzali do rukou zbraně. Teď kousíček a bylo po něm. Neuposlechnutí rozkazu znamenalo okamžité odstřelení. Sic pro někoho by to bylo vysvobození, však pro Elefarty ne. Té smrti se báli maximálně. Skrek objevil Egla a chtěl začít střílet. Díky své opilosti však upadl na zem a ztratil vědomí. Druhý Skrek se řítil za ním. Včas nedovedl zastavit a zakopl o prvního Skreka. On však stačil stisknout spoušť. Pár kulek vyletělo a vysklilo přední sklo dodávky. Eglas rychle reagoval. Vzal prvnímu jeho zbraň a začal střílet po druhém, jenž byl ještě při vědomí. Brzy však už smáčen krví. Vypustil svou hříšnou duši. Pak Eglas smutně pohlédnul do sudu svého osudu. V něm ležel mladý Elefart. Jeho zrak tu stále hleděl do nebes a ještě dál. Eglas zavřel jemu víka a postavil se osudu. Nenechá se přece zabít. Tak bezmocný on přece nebyl. Ihned totiž pomstu schystá. Teď sevřel pevně v rukou zbraň. První Skrek se náhle probral. Tasil nůž a bodnul Egla do nohy. Ten v bolesti své vyskočil a nechtíc zmáčknul spoušť té zbraně. Krev tryskala na všechny strany. A to nejen Eglova. První Skrek též ztratil duši.
Eglas vyskočil z dodávky a svalil se na zem. Krev tekla potokem. Příliš brzká jeho slova. Pomsta totiž předběžná byla. Teď zraněn se tu válel v chladu. Toť nebyla fakt šťastná chvíle. Eglas ze své ztráty krve omdlel. Poslední, co ještě spatřil, byl čísi stín.

vic:  Ah, thanks.  I must assume he was talking to himself ;-)

alanback: i think "right, complete swine" might make more sense...(i assume you won;)
there´s a good possibility the swine denotes luck (truly: pure luck).
...but my bulgarian is non-existent, i guess "likewise" would be the most suitable answer :)

My opponent's closing statement was ВЯРНО, ПЪЛНА СВИНЩИНА

The Russian translation site I visited, after changing each word in a spell check, came up with "Truly, pork is full."  The Bulgarian translation site wasn't much help either.

SkyLight:  It is correct to say "She won over me"  as the equivalent of "She beat me."  However, "She won me over" has a different meaning.

SkyLight: I have never heard the saying "win over me"

Yes you can say " You beat me"
or you could say " You have one win over me" meaning the person is beating you by one.

Sorry for my English. I would like to ask you:

Is the expression " win over me " correct ? Are the expressions "win over me" and "beat me" the same meaning?
Thank you for your answer.
Igor Svetlik.

Walter Montego: I have to disagree about the spelling of multiple contractions. In general, there should be an apostrophe wherever one or more letters have been omitted. (In older books one can often find "shall not" contracted as "sha'n't".) I don't know how many times I've seen "wouldn't've" in print (probably not many), but I'm almost certain I've never seen "wouldn'tve".

King Reza: "Have" can be contracted even when used as the main verb; I think this is more common in the UK than in the USA. Here on the Web, Google finds no small number of instances of "I've a", "I've the", and "I've two cats".

Now the propriety of such usage is a separate question. Arguments over grammar often boil down to a question of "Says who?", and contractions are one of the murkier areas if you're looking for absolutely binding rules. It's true that they're best avoided in formal speech and writing, but otherwise if you want to contract, contract. I don't know of anyone with the authority to tell you you mayn't.

King Reza: As a general writing rule I do know of "Avoid contractions whenever you can", but maybe that's because my mentors recognized I´ld never get to grips wit´hem

Walter Montego:Aint's is accepted here.  But it is said to be a rather informal form of am not, etc,. so It's better to avoid using it when speaking formally, which is often the case here in universities.

I've heard of no exceptions to what I said regarding 'have.'  If it means 'to possess,' it shouldn't be contracted.  Otherwise it can be.  That's all I've been taught.  But the natives make up the rules.  Except that 'notion' example, do you have any other cases in mind in which 'have' means 'to possess' but it is contracted?

Contractions of the type that have not in them should only have one apostrophe. "I would not have" is "I wouldn'tve" not "I wouldn't've."

Reza, how's the use of ain't taught there? Avoid or use?

I've never heard the possesion deal with contracting have. That's not a rule I ever heard of, but in your example sentence I would say the word have and not contract it. I think it depends on what is being talked about or possessed. Can notions be possessed? Such as, "I've a notion to do something about that?" I've noticed the over use of the word got, especially when it follows I've. It seems to me if you wouldn't say, "I have got it", then you shouldn't say, "I've got it."

Fencer: Thanks Fencer, appreciate that.

Rose: Thanks for nice games! And I wish you good luck in next rounds of the spider unstoppably getting more and more narrow!

KotDB:According to what I have learnt here in university, 'have' when used as a verb meaning to possess, cannot be contracted.  So basically the sentence "I've two cats at home." is wrong.  It is to be written in its full form when used as the main verb, but can be contracted when used as part of a verb like " I would've had to swim if I hadn't found my canoe."

KotDB:Thanks for the reply.  I checked the pics and they are similar to a great extent to what we have here.  Thanks again.

playBunny:I'm sorry it took so long to reply.  Thanks for the reply.  I checked the pics and the one that suited better was the first one: pram.  It looks more like what we have here, despite the fact that they have the 'collapsing' capability.

As for the other question, although I'm sure your answer must be thorough enough, I didn't get my answer!   My lack of knowledge it should be.

Let me ask my question in another way:

Which one of these explanations goes with which sentence?

1) I have an inner passion for swimming however I may not want to swim right now.  Or in other words, swimming is one of the things that I generally like and I do it when I feel like it, maybe now, maybe some other time.

2) Swimming is one of the things that I like and right now, I want to do it.  In other words, not only do I like it, but I want to do it right now.

***********************************************

Or maybe I can give you what I personally think and you can correct me:

I think when I say " I like swimming " I am referring to a general fact.  Swimming is a sport and it's fun and I like it.  Just like when I say I like hamburgers.  I may not be eating hamburgers in that particular time, but as a fact, I like them.

When I say " I like to swim " maybe I'm trying to say that I want to do it right now.  But I'm not sure.  So what I want to know is the difference between this sentence and the one above.

And, when I say " I'd like to swim " well, I used to think there was some sort of asking for permission in it.  But your example gives me the impression that it's conveying strong will.  So when I say " I'd like to swim ", I'm trying to say that I really really want to do it and do it now.

Thanks for helping me get the differences.

Czech translation please:
Díky za pěkné partie! A přeji Ti hodně štěstí v dalších kolech nezastavitelně se zužujícího pavouka!

KotDB: I see. I'm just'bt to recover'n start again'o'se the ' in my writing and wondered where the limits are of the correct forms. Thanks.

gogul: Well, I for one am fond of coining such multiple contractions (we'll've, it'sn't, they'ven't, etc.) in casual writing, but I think you'lln't've much chance of finding them in a dictionary.

An other question (yes, kind people is what you are):

What if you wouldn't know.

Is there a short form of the negation wouldn't. I'm not sure as it is already a shortform of would not. What if I'd write for example: What if you'dn't know.

LOL

King Reza: On this side of the pond it is often called a stroller.

Two questions for the kind people here to answer:

1) Please give me certain situations in which these three sentences may be said:

• I like to swim.
• I like swimming.
• I would like to swim.

2) What is the name of the wagon like thing that people put babies in and carry around with them?  It usually has a handle for parents to push it with an dfour or more wheels.

KotDB: I never said my English was perfect

Pedro Martínez: Both sentences are correct. If there's any difference in meaning, it's very subtle. I'd be inclined to use the less wordy one unless I could think of a good reason for the perfect tense.

Rose: How do you feel about the word "lackadaisical"?

King Reza, Rose: Thank you both. Every day one learns something new...:)

King Reza: I'm quite sure it is proper as well.
Pedro, the way you would have said it doesn't sound quite right. BUT it is how I talk, unfortunately, my English has gotten quite laxidazical. (Love that word!)

Pedro Martínez:That's grammatically very proper English.  I'm sure about it.

I have just come across the following sentence: "But for Duncan to be here he would have had to have been on the same flight as us."

Is it proper English? I would say just "...he would have had to be on the same flight..."

playBunny: oh thanks for that wonders now what im being congratulated for mmmmmmmm

felicitaciones!!!!
i keep getting that message of someone and ive know idea what it means

Pedro Martínez: okay thanks

"IceCold": "Neumím anglicky..smůla." = I don't speak English. You're out of luck.

"IceCold": Check this. You can comment on it if you wish ;)

this board should be under the members only board
ive been on BK 3 yrs and ive only just found it

Fencer:  What an answer!

King Reza: It must be lurking somewhere.

fenceeeeeeer  "It's lurking right at the bottom of the list" 

i didnt even realise there was a language board until Fencer pointed it out its lurking right at the bottom of the list..lol