ormiston Dec 14, 2020:

Hello Tony I actually meant it both ways to get round the clunky English (also the sense of "vous ne pouvez pas rentrer")

Tony M Dec 14, 2020:

@ Ormiston I think the trouble is, it is not a case of 'pouvoir' — indeed, the idea of forbidding all this seems to suggest it might indeed be actually possible — but rather 'devoir': it must not be used in these ways.

ormiston Dec 14, 2020:

Would this cover it?! Qui ne peut être porter (ni dans sa main, ni sur sa personne)

Lionel-N (asker) Dec 13, 2020:

@Tony Je pense aussi...mais le traduire.....

Tony M Dec 13, 2020:

@ Asker Probably just lazy draughting using a boiler-plate text :-)

Lionel-N (asker) Dec 13, 2020:

@Tony It's a kit for PCR amplification of VIH in human blood, so it contains basically microtubes containing enzymes, primers....so nothing that can be confounded as "wearable"

Tony M Dec 13, 2020:

@ Asker I've a feeling this was possibly written by someone whose native language might have been DE, in which case it is perhaps not so surprising that they wanted to be very careful and specify all possible prohibitions — particularly since it seems this device might conceivably be small enough to be considered feasible for hand-hend use?
I don't think you should attempt to over-think this!

Lionel-N (asker) Dec 13, 2020:

Alors, que le kit ne soit pas "portable" je comprends l'intérêt de le spécifier, mais "not handheld nor worn at body" outre non savoir comment le traduire correctement, cela n'a aucun sense pour moi. Qui "porte un kit sur le corps" ????

Tony M Dec 13, 2020:

@ Ormiston No, I think that's perfectly OK — they need to use 'at' instead of 'on' because you would probably not literally wear it (like a coat) or even 'on' in the sense of a backpack etc. Really just like we might say 'worn at the waist', but without wantint to be too restrictive as to where on the body; in any case, it's all a bit academic, since these are all things that are not going to be done!

Lionel-N (asker) Dec 13, 2020:

La société est Luxembourgeoise, ça explique peut-être quelques imprécisions sur l'Anglais....

ormiston Dec 13, 2020:

Why is nobody questioning the English of 'worn at body'? - 'worn on body' ok but it does somewhat undermine the whole awkward sentence.

Lionel-N (asker) Dec 12, 2020:

Ce que l'on trouve bcp plus fréquemment c'est "whether body-worn, hand held or integrated into portable"

Tony M Dec 12, 2020:

@ Asker 'porté sur le corps' ?

Lionel-N (asker) Dec 12, 2020:

@Tony Oui ça j'y arrive mais "worn at body" ?

Tony M Dec 12, 2020:

@ Asker Style : " ...pas destiné à une utilisation portative, ..."

Daryo Dec 12, 2020:

Other "detail" these are in fact 3 separate/ independent terms - they don't make a trio that always stick together.
You should split them in 3 questions

Lionel-N (asker) Dec 12, 2020:

@Tony Pas sur de te comprendre Tony; en françis tu dirais quoi pour ne pas "perdre" de sense ici ?

Tony M Dec 12, 2020:

@ Asker It's important perhaps not to lose sight of the syntax here:
"The product is a molecular biology assay only used ..., not portable, not handheld nor worn at body"
In other words, it is not intended to be used in a portable etc. manner. This could seem to suggest it is a comparatively compact device, and hence could conceivably have been used in these ways. As distinct from some massive piece of equipment that might need a crane + lorry to 'transport' it — in which case, of course, the issue wouldn't arise!