David Bernstein is criticizing Joe Lieberman’s syntax over on the Volokh Conspiracy. Only problem is, Bernstein’s corrective syntax is equally problematic:
When Lieberman is asked how his faith would affect his politics, he paraphrases a now-famous Kennedy line, telling voters, “I am a presidential candidate who happens to be Jewish, not the other way around.”
So Lieberman is not “a Jewish who happens to be a presidential candidate?” The quote would work if Lieberman would say “a Jew” instead of “to be Jewish”…
Hmm… “a Jew” instead of saying “to be Jewish”… so Lieberman should have said, “I am a presidential candidate who happens a Jew, not the other way around”? Um, yeah, that makes more sense. :)
Obviously, what Bernstein should have said is, “The quote would work if Lieberman would say ‘a Jew’ instead of ‘Jewish.’” Or, alternatively, he could have said, “The quote would work if Lieberman would say ‘to be a Jew’ instead of ‘to be Jewish.’” Of course, this is an extremely nitpicky point. But so is Bernstein’s, so he asked for it.
UPDATE: On the other hand, Sasha Volokh’s Lieberman-related post is just funny: “my father asks whether, if Lieberman gets some pro-Jewish law passed that benefits his district, it’s correct to call it pork.” Heh heh.
“‘…asks whether, if Lieberman gets some pro-Jewish law passed that benefits his district, it’s correct to call it pork.’ Heh heh.”
And a Waw haw. :) > Only if it is an emergency measure of such urgency as to permit his driving in to speak & vote for it on shabat. Of course since “benefits his district” means “is good for Connecticut,” that would be just any little old thing. :)
But — not to Knit any Picks or anything like that — what would be “some pro-Jewish law” for CT? Subsidies for residents of West Hartford, Bloomfield, Woodbridge & Colchester who study Torah full time and have large families to feed? :) Federal resolution of our border dispute with Rhode Island, complete with 30-foot-high Fence to isolate those pesky Little Rhodies squatting on our land over in Samaria, CT?? (”Providence Plantations”, indeed. :) Empanelment of a congressional Committee to investigate the ethics of Governor Sharon?? Hoo boy. :)
This is an archived post. Comments are closed.
To leave a comment on a newer post, please visit the homepage.
January 25th, 2004 at 6:21:09 am
“‘…asks whether, if Lieberman gets some pro-Jewish law passed that benefits his district, it’s correct to call it pork.’ Heh heh.”
And a Waw haw. :) > Only if it is an emergency measure of such urgency as to permit his driving in to speak & vote for it on shabat. Of course since “benefits his district” means “is good for Connecticut,” that would be just any little old thing. :)
But — not to Knit any Picks or anything like that — what would be “some pro-Jewish law” for CT? Subsidies for residents of West Hartford, Bloomfield, Woodbridge & Colchester who study Torah full time and have large families to feed? :) Federal resolution of our border dispute with Rhode Island, complete with 30-foot-high Fence to isolate those pesky Little Rhodies squatting on our land over in Samaria, CT?? (”Providence Plantations”, indeed. :) Empanelment of a congressional Committee to investigate the ethics of Governor Sharon?? Hoo boy. :)