quite a few to attack

[GoodTaste]

Does "quite a few to attack" mean "quite a few (of the non-state groups) to attack (humanitarian workers)"?


====================
“Internal, fragmented civil conflicts with international elements have been on the rise since the second world war. In a traditional war, the parties have an incentive to maintain a humanitarian presence to treat their war wounded or prisoners of war. Non-state groups have few [such] incentives and quite a few to attack”, said Abby Stoddard, a partner at Humanitarian Outcomes.

Source: The Lancet Published:September 05, 2020
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...858-4/fulltext

New link:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31858-4/fulltext

Or click:
[h=2]COVID-19 exacerbates violence against health workers[/h]

 

[Tarheel]

It's hard to know what that's supposed to mean. (You can't attack incentives.)

 

[GoodTaste]

Okay. Let's see whether other members can see through the grammar.

 

[tzfujimino]

Your link doesn't work, GoodTaste.

 

[teechar]

Non-state groups have few [such] incentives and quite a few to attack”,

Non-state groups have hardly any incentives to have/respect humanitarian workers.
Non-state groups have many incentives/motivations just to launch attacks (against their enemies).

 

[GoodTaste]

Your link doesn't work, GoodTaste.

I've added a new link and the title of the article with link in the OP. Or just click:

[h=2]COVID-19 exacerbates violence against health workers[/h]

 

[Tarheel]

The traditional state groups (countries) have incentives to maintain a humanitarian presence (treat their wounded and POWs). Non-state groups do not have those incentives. Furthermore, they have incentives to attack humanitarian workers (healthcare workers). (What could those incentives possibly be?)

As I stated elsewhere, attacking people for doing their jobs is entirely irrational.

 

[GoodTaste]

The meaning is clear.

But now the question is: Has the author made a grammatical mistake?

By the structure "Non-state groups have few [such] incentives and quite a few to attack", the author gives both "few" and "quite a few" the same incentives, yet "few" and "quite a few" have different incentives - one refers to humanitarian incentives and the other refers to anti-humanitarian incentives.

 

[Tarheel]

My guess is that "quite a few to attack" means "quite a few incentives to attack healthcare workers". (It is unclear to me what those incentives are.)

 

[teechar]

Has the author made a grammatical mistake?

No.

the author [STRIKE]gives[/STRIKE] uses both "few" and "quite a few" to refer to the same incentives,

No. That's an incorrect assumption on your part. The author meant "and quite a few other incentives to attack".

 

[GoodTaste]

No.


No. That's an incorrect assumption on your part. The author meant "and quite a few other incentives to attack".

OK. But is putting "other" there justified by grammar? I can't see the justification.

 

[teechar]

I don't understand what you mean. I added "other incentives" to clarify what was implied.

 

[GoodTaste]

Then that is simply a good guess. But implication is hard to get with 100% accuracy. Good grammar makes things clear unambiguously.

 

[GoesStation]

The author meant "and quite a few other incentives to attack".

OK. But is putting "other" there justified by grammar? I can't see the justification.

I don't understand what you mean. I added "other incentives" to clarify what was implied.

Then that is simply a good guess. But implication is hard to get with 100% accuracy. Good grammar makes things clear unambiguously.

I don't understand what you're getting at. Teechar's sentence is grammatically correct, as you should expect from a native speaker who's a moderator here.

 

[emsr2d2]

Then that is simply a good guess. But implication is hard to get with 100% accuracy. Good grammar makes things clear unambiguously.

Are you trying to say that if better grammar had been used in the original text, it would not have been ambiguous?

 

[GoodTaste]

Are you trying to say that if better grammar had been used in the original text, it would not have been ambiguous?

Yes.

 

[GoesStation]

Are you trying to say that if better grammar had been used in the original text, it would not have been ambiguous?

Yes.

The original quote is perfectly grammatical. Here it is again:

"In a traditional war, the parties have an incentive to maintain a humanitarian presence to treat their war wounded or prisoners of war. Non-state groups have few [such] incentives and quite a few to attack”, said Abby Stoddard, a partner at Humanitarian Outcomes.

I'll rephrase the second sentence to clarify it.

In a traditional war, the parties have an incentive to maintain a humanitarian presence to treat their war wounded or prisoners of war. Non-state groups have few [such] incentives and quite a few other incentives to attack health-care providers ….

The quoted sentence doesn't say what those other incentives might be, but that's not because of a grammatical error.

 

[GoodTaste]

The original quote is perfectly grammatical. Here it is again:
I'll rephrase the second sentence to clarify it.

In a traditional war, the parties have an incentive to maintain a humanitarian presence to treat their war wounded or prisoners of war. Non-state groups have few [such] incentives and quite a few other incentives to attack health-care providers ….

The quoted sentence doesn't say what those other incentives might be, but that's not because of a grammatical error.

Again, you've simply reinserted "other" into there that doesn't espcape the scope of implication, which involves suggestion of possibility rather than confirmation of plain evidence.

 

[GoesStation]

Again, you've simply reinserted "other" into there that doesn't espcape the scope of implication, which involves suggestion of possibility rather than confirmation of plain evidence.

I added a word that clarifies the original sentence. This was possible because, as a native speaker, I understood that the sentence implied the word.

This thread has more than run its course, so I'll close it here.

 

[teechar]

Again, you've simply reinserted "other" into there that doesn't espcape the scope of implication, which involves suggestion of possibility rather than confirmation of plain evidence.

That's unintelligible. The original was grammatical, unambiguous and readily understandable. If you are wondering whether we are making a guess about the two sets of incentives being different, we are not! It is only logical that they should be different, hence the implied "other".