この前ちょっと話題になったことのメモ。下線部の構造はどうなっているのでしょう？
The IOC has estimated around 85% of residents of the Olympic Village are vaccinated; that’s based that on what each country’s Olympic committee reports but is not an independently verified number.
The USOPC figure is more solid — based on questionnaires athletes were asked to fill out before they came to Japan. Finnoff said the committee is not differentiating its treatment of athletes based on whether they’re vaccinated.
どうにも不可解なので頭を捻ってみると、まず the IOC has based [the fact [that around ... are vaccinated]] on [what each ... reports ∅︎ but ∅︎ is not an independently verified number]. が思い付くでしょう。しかしながら、その読みでは次のような難点に直面するはずです。
- そもそも一体どういう意味？
- what is not an independently verified number とは？
- もし “what each country’s Olympic committee reports, which, however, is not an independently verified number” のような意味なら the number which each country’s Olympic committee reports but is not independently verified のように number が主体になるはず。
- base O₁ on O₂ は普通は受動態で使う（ジーニアスは受動態の例文しか載せてない）ので、そんな格式ばった用法と that has のくだけた省略としての that’s が共存できるとは考えにくい。
- the IOC は普通は they で受けて、次点で it を使い、その次に the IOC ともう一回書いてしまうのが自然なはず。that で受けるとは考えにくい。
- 直後の The USOPC figure is more solid — based on questionnaires [athletes were asked to fill out ∅︎ before they came to Japan]. を考えると IOC↔︎USOPC の対比が number↔︎figure の言い換えを通じて為されているので parallelism の観点では極めて不自然。
したがって、どう考えても “around 85%” is based on [what each ... reports] but is not an independently verified number. と解釈すべき文になるはずであり、二つ目の that は誤植であったと結論づけるべきものになります。実際、Los Angeles Times と The Globe and Mail は二つ目の that をちゃんと抜いています。
