and a red flag

[GoodTaste]

What grammatical role does "and a red flag" serve here? Is it an object? If so, how to understand the use of "and"? Something is odd here.

=======================
Normally co-authors of high-profile papers share subject area expertise or have clear professional ties, says Jerome Kassirer, chief editor of NEJM during the 1990s. He calls the collaboration of the apparently disparate individuals “completely bizarre,” and a red flag that the studies warranted intensive scrutiny that the journals failed to provide.

Source: Science
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020...vid-19-scandal

 

[emsr2d2]

A red flag is something that alerts you to something dangerous, or warns you that something needs a closer look.

 

[jutfrank]

What a horribly phrased sentence. I'm not surprised you had trouble parsing it, GoodTaste.

 

[GoodTaste]

What a horribly phrased sentence. I'm not surprised you had trouble parsing it, GoodTaste.

Care to edit it?

 

[jutfrank]

Not really, but okay.

The problem (for me) is the combination of the normal use of the pattern call something1 something 2 with the odd use of the pattern call something 2 something 1, so a quick reversal of the somethings in the second element of the combination would sound better straight away:

He calls the collaboration of the apparently disparate individuals “completely bizarre,” and [the fact] that the studies warranted intensive scrutiny that the journals failed to provide, a red flag.

That's easier to parse, I believe, but it's still not great. What do you think? Do you think you would have understood the sentence if it had been phrased this way?

 

[jutfrank]

Reading my post #6 back, I'm now doubting whether I've understood the sentence in question correctly.

Piscean—would you mind explaining a little more how you're reading this sentence? (I.e., number (2) in the quote below.) What's the grammatical pattern being used?

He calls the collaboration of the apparently disparate individuals:
(1) “completely bizarre,”
and
(2) a red flag that the studies warranted intensive scrutiny that the journals failed to provide.

Is my interpretation in post #6 right?

(I can't think very clearly this afternoon. I think I need to have some lunch.)

 

[emsr2d2]

I've tried but I can't read it any other way than Piscean did.

 

[jutfrank]

Okay, I was reading it wrong, then. Thanks.

 

[GoodTaste]

I've tried but I can't read it any other way than Piscean did.

Yes. Piscean's explanation is easier to understand.

In this explanation, it is a simple structure of "A calls B odd and a red flag (that invites police to probe B)."

 

[jutfrank]

I've had tea now and I still can't parse the sentence.

If it's the collaboration that's a red flag, then what's the function of the that-clause?

Would somebody care to rephrase the sentence in a way I might understand? Are GoodTaste and I the only ones who find the structure problematic?

 

[jutfrank]

he also calls it a warning [a red flag]. It is a warning that the studies warranted intense scrutiny

Yes, that's the bit I wasn't getting. The pattern is: a warning + that + clause, where red flag stands in for warning. Yeuch!

Thank you, Piscean. This language of yours is not so easy sometimes.