Arianna A (X) Nov 30, 2007:

Good!
Ok, let me know then. No probl!

carly kelly (asker) Nov 30, 2007:

ok, so let's say strike is mentioned twice so as to be super specific and that the second strike is by somebody else. Who, though? Employers? That just doesn't make sense to me, employers don't go on strike! Anyway, I really appreciate all the time you've spent trying to get to the bottom of this. I'm going to bring this part to the agency's attention and see what the client says. Will let you know the outcome.

Arianna A (X) Nov 30, 2007:

If they want to be sure no case is forgotten, they specify every single case. I guess sometimes Italian law is frustrating, it is not always clear and easy. Good luck! ;)

Arianna A (X) Nov 30, 2007:

I suggest you to wait for more Prozians to see what they say just to be sure. For what I understand as an Italian native speaker, the meaning is the one I told you. Maybe you need also to understand the insurance principles of this policy.

Arianna A (X) Nov 30, 2007:

As I said in my answer, "strike" is mentioned twice because it referres to two different kind of strikes. I can understand your doubt, because if in a list you mention "strike" once it should be effective for all cases, therefore no need to add it twice.

carly kelly (asker) Nov 29, 2007:

Hi there - unfortunately there isn't really any context I can give that would help to understand the sentence better because it's a list, so the previous entry is about acts of terrorism, and the one after about seizure and restraint by the authorities.
There are plenty of unnecessary commas dotted all over the text so this sentence may be no exception, although even without the comma I still can't get my head round the meaning and why sciopero is mentioned twice.

Arianna A (X) Nov 29, 2007:

Ah! And please remember Italians are master in strikes!!!!!! So you really never know which reason they find for striking ;)

Arianna A (X) Nov 29, 2007:

...it could be the strike is a consequence of riots etc...

Arianna A (X) Nov 29, 2007:

Maybe, and I say maybe 'cause I'd need more context, the problem here is an unnecessary comma. Look: "serrata e tumulti dei lavoratori, a seguito di reazione da parte dei datori di lavoro o sciopero" if you read the sentence without the comma....

Arianna A (X) Nov 29, 2007:

...example is not necessarily related to the next one... Did I make myself clear? :) Now the sentence is: "reazione da parte dei datori di lavoro o sciopero" which litteraly means in Italian "reaction by employers or strike".

Arianna A (X) Nov 29, 2007:

I think you are right, does not really make sense to have a strike as a consequence of a strike. But by reading this sentence (and unfortunately not the whole text, which would give me more context) I understand that is a list, therefore the previous...

James (Jim) Davis Nov 29, 2007:

of a strike is absurd unless the second strike is by somebody else. However, it is by definition workers who strike, not employers. If that is the meaning, it needs to be clearly stated.

James (Jim) Davis Nov 29, 2007:

Carly, this is part of a very long sentence. Sometimes they even managed to put the whole contract in one sentence I think. As it is this is just a repeat of "sciopero", "... a strike... as a consequence of a ...strike...". Now a strike as a consequence