This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site, while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used. For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
Cookie settings
  1. KudoZ™ Top
  2. English
  3. Business/Commerce (general)

Protect yourself for the most probable disassters of 2012

English translation: Incorrect? No.

GLOSSARY ENTRY (DERIVED FROM QUESTION BELOW)
English term or phrase:Protect yourself for the most probable disassters of 2012
Selected answer:Incorrect? No.
Entered by: George Rabel

21:23 Sep 23, 2015
English language (monolingual) [PRO]
Marketing - Business/Commerce (general) / US English
English term or phrase: Protect yourself for the most probable disassters of 2012
Browsing through a Loerzer's Archives magazine from 2012 I found an image of an ad for an insurance company. The copy reads as follows:

PROTECT YOURSELF FOR THE MOST PROBABLE DISASTERS OF 2012

I'd would have written "from" rather than "for."

My question is: Is the use of "for," exactly as used in this example, incorrect?
George Rabel
Local time: 21:51
Incorrect? No.
Explanation:
Protect yourself ...
for the future,
for the rest of your life,
for the most probable disasters...

I think it's fine, just has a different meaning.
Selected response from:

Cilian O'Tuama
Germany
Local time: 03:51
Grading comment
4 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer



SUMMARY OF ALL EXPLANATIONS PROVIDED
4 +6it's correct
Charles Davis
3 +2Incorrect? No.
Cilian O'Tuama


Discussion entries: 5





  

Answers


31 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 3/5Answerer confidence 3/5 peer agreement (net): +2
protect yourself for the most probable disasters of 2012
Incorrect? No.


Explanation:
Protect yourself ...
for the future,
for the rest of your life,
for the most probable disasters...

I think it's fine, just has a different meaning.


Cilian O'Tuama
Germany
Local time: 03:51
Native speaker of: English
PRO pts in category: 20

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  Eckhard Boehle
10 hrs
agree  Shera Lyn Parpia
14 hrs
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

29 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5 peer agreement (net): +6
protect yourself for the most probable disassters of 2012
it's correct


Explanation:
There's a difference between protecting yourself from something and protecting yourself for something. An insurance policy can't protect you from disasters. Having an insurance policy doesn't have any effect on the probability of them happening to you. It can only protect you from their consequences, or mitigate the damage they may do you if they do happen to you. So it can provide you with protection for them, protection for, not from, the eventuality of them happening to you. Similarly you could speak of protecting yourself for a conflict, when you can't prevent it from happening; it means taking measures in advance to ensure that the damage it can do to you is minimised: putting on armour, for example. Protecting yourself from a conflict is different; it implies avoiding it, preventing it from happening to you at all.

Certainly you can also prepare yourself for disasters, but that's not the same thing. Preparing yourself might be simply adjusting yourself mentally to the prospect, for example. It doesn't necessarily involve taking steps to protect yourself.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 35 mins (2015-09-23 21:59:11 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

You can protect yourself from disasters, in the sense of doing things that make it less likely they will happen to you. You can protect yourself from burglary by locking your home, having a burglar alarm, etc. But taking out insurance doesn't protect you from burglary; it protects you for burglary by protecting you from its consequences.

Charles Davis
Spain
Local time: 03:51
Native speaker of: English
PRO pts in category: 88
Notes to answerer
Asker: Outstanding explanation, Charles. Your reasoning is flawless. Thank you

Asker: Muchas hracias


Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  Cilian O'Tuama: Not only not incorrect.
28 mins
  -> No, though the double negative does answer George's precise question: "is it incorrect?" Thanks, Cilian.
agree  Teresa Reinhardt
8 hrs
  -> Thanks, Teresa :)
agree  Eckhard Boehle
10 hrs
  -> Thank you, Eckhard!
agree  Shera Lyn Parpia
11 hrs
  -> Thanks, Shera Lyn :)
agree  Eleanor Bridgwood (X)
16 hrs
  -> Thanks, Eleanor :)
agree  Phong Le
16 hrs
  -> Thank you, Phong Le :)
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)



Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.

You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.

Return to KudoZ list

KudoZ™ translation help

The KudoZ network provides a framework for translators and others to assist each other with translations or explanations of terms and short phrases.

See also:
ProZ.com term search
Search millions of term translations
Close search
Term search
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search