0

I have been accused of a lack of reading comprehension in the following statement: Irgun later on became part of the "Jewish authorities", specifically the IDF by a self-professed wordsmith. To me, it basically states that Irgun became the IDF and I have been taken to task for that interpretation. However, I can see no alternative.

1
  • As it stands, I'd agree with your interpretation of that fragment, but context would help here.
    – Rory Alsop
    Commented Dec 16, 2014 at 8:22

2 Answers 2

1

It depends on whether "specifically the IDF" relates to "Irgun ... became" or to "the Jewish authorities" (i.e. he became a part of the authorities, specifically that part known as the IDF). The second reading is just as intuitive as the first, I would say.

An alternative could be:

Irgun later on became part of the "Jewish authorities" (specifically that part known as the IDF)

but I wouldn't say that is an improvement.

1

I'd read it as "Irgun became part of the "Jewish authorities", and Irgun specifically became part of the IDF."

A quick look on Google leads to Wikipedia where I find:

The Irgun militants were then fully integrated with the IDF and not kept in separate units.

I think an interpretation as you suggest is possible, but not necessarily the only one.

0

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.