Reply
Thu 20 Dec, 2007 07:28 am
In short, nothing in the new assessment makes the story Iran tells about Natanz any less fishy or the dangers posed by its dash to enrich uranium any less troubling. But it has utterly changed the politics of the issue. The case for American pre-emption now.
I'd appreciate it if you say it in a different way. Thanks
Re: any less
fansy wrote:In short, nothing in the new assessment makes the story Iran tells about Natanz any less fishyor the dangers posed by its dash to enrich uranium any less troubling.
The locution "any less" used with a negative (in this case "nothing" at the beginning of the sentence) is used to convey that something is not convincing.
"Any less fishy" means that "the story Iran tells about Natanz" continues to be suspicious and unconvining. "Any less troubling" means that Iran's (alleged) "dash to enrich uranium" continues to worry observers. So, one might write:
In short, the story Iran tells about Natanz continues to be suspicious [i.e., "fishy"]
, and the dangers posed by its dash to enrich uranium continues to be troubling, despite the new assessment.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace