Surveillance strategies in the UK and Israel often go global

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 40 points 6 months ago* (4 children)

No, beyond the legalese. For example, the comma placement in:

which, unknown to them threatens,

The comma should go after "them", because "unknown to them" constitutes the entire aside.

If you delete the aside in this, it reads "which national security", whereas it should read "which threatens national security".

This is just the first one I found; I didn't go hunting for them. It's one of those grammatical mistakes that actively ruins the cadence of the sentence as you read it in your head.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 6 months ago* (3 children)

    And worse mistakes:

    where there must be at least possibility that

    I have complete sympathy for non-native speakers writing papers, but it also raises the question of whether they properly understand the source material they're referencing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    I will inform you that this excerpt is correct English. There needn't be an article like "a" or "the" before "possibility". It reads awkwardly in everyday language, but that really is just innocent "legalese" phrasing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago

    Thanks for the correction. Rereading it I can kind of see if they mean possibility as an abstract concept, so I'll take the L on it.

    But I still maintain it's a pretty fucked way of phrasing it.

  • source
  • parent