OK.  Today I’m half asleep, listening to Morning Edition as usual.

It’s a story about China banning the importing of certain shellfish from Alaska and the state of Washington.  China claims it recently found two bad clams.

The action puts a strain on the shellfish industry up there.  And, there is belief in some quarters that China’s concern is not legitimate.

NPR went to an expert.  Here’s what she said (get ready).

“It is possible that it could be retaliation for something that has happened in the past.”

(I think highlighting the entire sentence is appropriate.)

The woman quoted is, according to the story on the NPR website, a post-doctoral research fellow at the Princeton-Harvard China and the World Program.  (Yes, that Princeton, and that Harvard.)

Let’s take closer look at her analysis:

“It is possible that it could be . . . “

OK, you don’t want to be too didactic.

“ . . . for something that has happened in the past.”

I’m thinkin’ that “has happened” probably already covers “the past.”

And, I can’t help but wonder what particular function “has” serves in this sentence.

This is a classic sentence.  It’s clear that the post-doctoral program in question doesn’t base its acceptance on clear expression.