Kenny同志 Posted March 24, 2011 at 06:12 AM Report Share Posted March 24, 2011 at 06:12 AM "From the investor community, the energy funds I am speaking to, not alternative energy funds but funds who have had complete '360s' on this and were pro-nuclear, they have gone anti-nuclear." from: http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/8392636/Japan-crisis-forces-rethink-of-the-nuclear-option.html&sa=U&ei=FOCKTYeYKYGKuAOnzazBDg&ved=0CA4QFjAB&usg=AFQjCNFh14vnGen8brOvldy3VOVsYGWrUA Is it grammatical? I am totally at a loss as to what it is saying. I will be more than grateful if you could rewrite it for me. Thanks for your help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daofeishi Posted March 24, 2011 at 06:58 AM Report Share Posted March 24, 2011 at 06:58 AM Try this: I have been talking to investor funds from the investor community. These are not alternative energy funds, but funds that have had complete 360s (changed their opinion completely) on nuclear power and were pro-nuclear. These funds have (now) gone anti-nuclear. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creamyhorror Posted March 24, 2011 at 07:42 AM Report Share Posted March 24, 2011 at 07:42 AM "From the investor community, the energy funds I am speaking to, not alternative energy funds but funds who have had complete '360s' on this and were pro-nuclear, they have gone anti-nuclear." It's not quite grammatical, because some words were left out, but it's a common sort of "error" in speech. The sentence is pretty badly constructed, but that's the nature of off-the-cuff speech. The basic structure is: "From the investor community, (I have heard that) they have gone anti-nuclear." 1. "the energy funds I am speaking to, not alternative energy funds but funds who have had complete '360s' on this and were pro-nuclear" is a clarification/qualification of the noun "investor community". 2. To clarify the previous quote, I've inserted parentheses to show words that were left out: "the energy funds I am speaking to, (which are) not alternative energy funds but (are) funds who {have had complete '360s' on this and were pro-nuclear}" 3a. "not alternative energy funds but funds who have had complete '360s' on this and were pro-nuclear": this segment is a parenthetical insertion, used to clarify/qualify the noun phrase "energy funds I am speaking to". 3b. Doing a "complete 360" is a misused phrase here; it should be doing a "complete 180", since turning 360 degrees leaves you at your original orientation (which in this case is pro-nuclear). But the funds have turned anti-nuclear. 3c. It's also tautological to qualify these funds with the description "have had complete 360s on this", since the point of the basic structure is to say that pro-nuclear funds have gone anti-nuclear. He/she is literally saying that pro-nuclear funds that have reversed their stance on nuclear power have gone anti-nuclear, which is a tautology. 4. In summary, the basic meaning (tautology removed) is "I have heard from pro-nuclear energy funds that they have gone anti-nuclear." Hope that wasn't too confusing! Sorry if I covered anything you already were aware of. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny同志 Posted March 24, 2011 at 08:47 AM Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2011 at 08:47 AM Thank you Feishi for your rewrite and thank you Creamyhorror for your very detailed explanation. The posts are very helpful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbradfor Posted March 24, 2011 at 03:17 PM Report Share Posted March 24, 2011 at 03:17 PM complete '360s' I've never understood that construction. If you do a 360, aren't you facing where you started? Shouldn't that be a 180? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny同志 Posted March 25, 2011 at 03:13 AM Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2011 at 03:13 AM The speaker made a slip of the tongue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gharial Posted March 25, 2011 at 11:35 AM Report Share Posted March 25, 2011 at 11:35 AM What concept would best describe this then? Excessive apposition? Unmarked parenthesis? Irradiated brains? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aristotle1990 Posted March 25, 2011 at 02:08 PM Report Share Posted March 25, 2011 at 02:08 PM [delete me] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daofeishi Posted March 25, 2011 at 11:47 PM Report Share Posted March 25, 2011 at 11:47 PM What concept would best describe this then? Excessive angular momentum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and select your username and password later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.