or Powell's or me• • •
"Mike and Jon, Jon and Mike—I've known them both for years, and, clearly, one of them is very funny. As for the other: truly one of the great hangers-on of our time."—Steve Bodow, head writer, The Daily Show
•
"Who can really judge what's funny? If humor is a subjective medium, then can there be something that is really and truly hilarious? Me. This book."—Daniel Handler, author, Adverbs, and personal representative of Lemony Snicket
•
"The good news: I thought Our Kampf was consistently hilarious. The bad news: I’m the guy who wrote Monkeybone."—Sam Hamm, screenwriter, Batman, Batman Returns, and Homecoming
July 22, 2004
More Terrifying Funniness
As I mentioned yesterday, the Senate Intelligence Subcommittee report on Iraq includes this sentence:
Two CIA Iraq WINPAC analysts told Committee staff that after looking at the documents, they did notice some inconsistencies. One of the analysts told Committee staff, "it was not immediately apparent, it was not jumping out at us that the documents were forgeries."
What I didn't mention is the next sentence:
The CIA then sent the documents to the State Department for translation.
The documents are in French. So... does this mean the CIA doesn't have any translators who SPEAK FRENCH? I mean, I realize French is an incredibly exotic, traitorous language that's only taught in 90% of the high schools in America. And like everyone, I'm offended when foreigners insist on making those guttural, non-English sounds they call their "language." Nonetheless, it seems to me the CIA might take some of those tens of billions of dollars they spend every year and hire people who speak the languages used by the others who inhabit this planet. Just because it's like, you know, the very most basic part of their job.
If you're curious, scanned copies and translations of the Niger documents are available here (courtesy of Laura Rozen).
Besides Iraq and Iran, the purported military alliance the documents mention includes Niger, Sudan, Pakistan, and Libya. Uh, you bet.
Interestingly, after a quick read I see no sign in the documents that this imaginary military campaign was -- as the Senate report claims -- "being orchestrated through the Nigerien Embassy in Rome." That doesn't make the documents any less bizarre, but it does make me wonder what the report is talking about.
Finally, the high school English teacher in me wishes to point out that the report's sentence as a whole:
The members of the alleged military campaign included both Iraq and Iran, and was, according to the documents, being orchestrated through the Nigerien Embassy in Rome...
is grammatically incorrect. "Members" is plural, thus the verb should not be "was." In fact, the whole sentence should be torn down and replaced by two new, gentrified sentences:
The members of the alleged military campaign included both Iraq and Iran. The campaign was, according to the documents, being orchestrated through the Nigerien Embassy in Rome...
Perhaps one day the people who hold our lives in their hands will be competent at the most simple tasks. But don't wait up.
Posted at July 22, 2004 11:11 PM | TrackBackAt least if Iraq and Iran were planning a coordinated attack through the Nigerien Embassy in Rome, that would be interesting, instead of the tedious, repetitive lies we've been dealing with for four years now.
Posted by: Adam Kotsko at July 23, 2004 08:17 AM>The members of the alleged military campaign included both Iraq and Iran, and was, according to the documents, being orchestrated through the Nigerien Embassy in Rome...
ummm not to mention the spelling of "Nigerien"....
Posted by: JG at July 23, 2004 10:51 AMbut the verb 'was' is not referring to the word 'members' it is referring to the word campaign, which is singular...
at least that's how i read it.
but i agree, that two sentences would have been better, grammatically speaking...
Posted by: peter at July 23, 2004 02:22 PMPeter,
I'm glad at least one other person on earth likes talking about grammar.
The subject of that sentence is "The members of the alleged military campaign." That's plural. If the sentence were in the present tense, the first verb would be "include" -- as opposed to "includes," which is what it would be if the subject were singular. I.e.,
"The members of the alleged military campaign include Iran and Iraq..."
As opposed to:
"The alleged military campaign includes Iran and Iraq..."
And just like you can't change horses in midstream, you can't change subjects in midsentence. So the subject can't suddenly become "the campaign."
Anyway, as we agree, it's just a bad sentence to begin with.
Or as lovers of fine grammar might put it: it's just a bad sentence with which to begin. Which would change the meaning of the original sentence. This demonstrates that clarity should trumph grammar.
Posted by: Jonathan Schwarz at July 24, 2004 05:47 PMI think it's "Nigerien" rather than "Nigerian" to distinguish between Niger and Nigeria.
