Advertising - LEO without ads? LEO Pur
LEO

It looks like you’re using an ad blocker.

Would you like to support LEO?

Disable your ad blocker for LEO or make a donation.

 
  •  
  • Topic

    ersticken

    Comment

    Hallo

    kann mir einer den Unterschied zwischen asphysiate und chocke erklären

    Danke

    Andrea

    Authorem28mi (999267) 20 Apr 20, 20:20
    Comment

    Achtung Orthographie: to choke, to asphyxiate.

    Bei 'choke' erstickst du an einem Gegenstand, z.B. einer verschluckten Gräte.

    Bei 'asphyxiate' erstickst du an einer Unterbrechung der Luftzufuhr, z.B. durch Nasezuhalten.

    #1Author penguin (236245) 20 Apr 20, 20:26
    Comment

    Ich würde das so nicht unbedingt trennen. 'asphyxiation' ist die Todesart; 'choking' löst es aus. So if somebody chokes you for long enough, you die of asphyxiation/ you asphyxiate - so verstehe ich es.


    'asphyxiate' als Verb halte ich eher für gehoben (oder natürlich Fachvokabular); 'to choke' ist ein ganz normales Wort.


    Und 'choke' kann natürlich auch einfach 'verschlucken' bedeuten, aber das ist noch mal was anderes.

    #2Author Gibson (418762)  20 Apr 20, 20:48
    Comment

    'to choke' bedeutet nicht nur einfach, dass man sich verschluckt, sondern schon auch, dass man an einem Fremdkörper erstickt.



    #3Author penguin (236245) 20 Apr 20, 21:24
    Comment

    to choke” can be both intransitive and transitive.

     

    intrans.:

     

    “Little Ed gasped, then choked on the half-eaten nuts in his mouth. Françoise thumped him on the back several times until he caught his breath. When he could ...“

     

    „Concerned mum shares how her baby daughter choked on the stuffing of a popular toy. She hopes her warning saves other families. Kath Milroy Pattingale ...“

     

    —intransitive choking doesn’t necessarily lead to death (see first example above).

     

    trans.:

     

    “She choked him with a pillow.”

     

    The intransitive use of “choke” denotes asphyxiation due to an internal cause; the transitive use denotes asphyxiation due to an external cause (e.g., a pillow, or strangulation).

     

    to asphyxiate” is as far as I know always transitive (or reflexive):

     

    “She asphyxiated him with a pillow.”

    “He climbed into his car and asphyxiated himself with carbon monoxide.”

     

    (There are numerous figurative uses of “to choke,” but I guess you’re not interested in those since they have nothing to do with “to asphyxiate.”)

    #4AuthorBion (1092007)  20 Apr 20, 22:01
    Comment

    'to choke' bedeutet nicht nur einfach, dass man sich verschluckt, sondern schon auch, dass man an einem Fremdkörper erstickt.


    Eben nicht immer: He nearly choked when he heard that. Aber das ist eine andere Verwendung (ich nehme an, dass Bion unter anderem so was mit 'figurative' meint), deshalb habe ich ja extra gesagt 'etwas anderes'.

    #5Author Gibson (418762)  20 Apr 20, 22:38
    Comment

    Dann gibt es noch to suffocate...

    #6Author eineing (771776) 20 Apr 20, 22:55
    Comment

    How about choking to death on a bone, say, or a peanut?

    #7Author penguin (236245) 20 Apr 20, 23:12
    Comment

    Then you asphyxiate ;-)

    #8Author Gibson (418762) 20 Apr 20, 23:42
    Comment

    Gibson @#5

    No, I wasn’t thinking of that sense of “choke,” which I would call a literal one. The figurative uses are multifarious: a field or a stream can be choked with weeds, you can choke a fire/flames or your feelings (all these uses in the sense of “smother”) or an engine, or feelings can choke your voice, etc.

     

    I wasn’t aware of the intransitive use of “asphyxiate,” but I see it’s listed in M-W, Pons, and other dictionaries. (I’m used to using intransitive “suffocate” there.)


    P.S. Sorry, I misread you---yes, I guess I'd call that a figurative use, too.

    #9AuthorBion (1092007)  21 Apr 20, 11:26
    Comment

    (I’m used to using intransitive “suffocate” there.)


    I'm wildly guessing here, but I'd see this mainly as a difference in register/jargon - 'asphixiate' is something I'd expect to hear from a doctor (or pathologist - I watch all those crime series ;-); 'suffocate' I use myself. Does that sound plausable, or is 'asphyxiate' as normal for you as 'appendix'?

    #10Author Gibson (418762) 21 Apr 20, 13:19
    Comment

    Could well be that in this intransitive sense/use it’s more clinical/forensic.


    In the transitive use, which I’m familiar with, I find it a bit less so, more formal in register than both "suffocate" and "choke," but not quite so humdrum as "appendix."

    #11AuthorBion (1092007) 21 Apr 20, 14:02
    Comment

    Danke an alle

    Bleibt gesund

    #12Authorem28mi (999267) 21 Apr 20, 19:10
     
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  
 
 
 
 
 ­ automatisch zu ­ ­ umgewandelt