Is this sentence grammatical?

[Kenny同志]

"From the investor community, the energy funds I am speaking to, not alternative energy funds but funds who have had complete '360s' on this and were pro-nuclear, they have gone anti-nuclear."

from: http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/8392636/Japan-crisis-forces-rethink-of-the-nuclear-option.html&sa=U&ei=FOCKTYeYKYGKuAOnzazBDg&ved=0CA4QFjAB&usg=AFQjCNFh14vnGen8brOvldy3VOVsYGWrUA

Is it grammatical? I am totally at a loss as to what it is saying.

I will be more than grateful if you could rewrite it for me.

Thanks for your help.

[daofeishi]

Try this:

I have been talking to investor funds from the investor community. These are not alternative energy funds, but funds that have had complete 360s (changed their opinion completely) on nuclear power and were pro-nuclear. These funds have (now) gone anti-nuclear.

[creamyhorror]

"From the investor community, the energy funds I am speaking to, not alternative energy funds but funds who have had complete '360s' on this and were pro-nuclear, they have gone anti-nuclear."

It's not quite grammatical, because some words were left out, but it's a common sort of "error" in speech. The sentence is pretty badly constructed, but that's the nature of off-the-cuff speech.

The basic structure is:

"From the investor community, (I have heard that) they have gone anti-nuclear."

1. "the energy funds I am speaking to, not alternative energy funds but funds who have had complete '360s' on this and were pro-nuclear" is a clarification/qualification of the noun "investor community".

2. To clarify the previous quote, I've inserted parentheses to show words that were left out: "the energy funds I am speaking to, (which are) not alternative energy funds but (are) funds who {have had complete '360s' on this and were pro-nuclear}"

3a. "not alternative energy funds but funds who have had complete '360s' on this and were pro-nuclear": this segment is a parenthetical insertion, used to clarify/qualify the noun phrase "energy funds I am speaking to".

3b. Doing a "complete 360" is a misused phrase here; it should be doing a "complete 180", since turning 360 degrees leaves you at your original orientation (which in this case is pro-nuclear). But the funds have turned anti-nuclear.

3c. It's also tautological to qualify these funds with the description "have had complete 360s on this", since the point of the basic structure is to say that pro-nuclear funds have gone anti-nuclear. He/she is literally saying that pro-nuclear funds that have reversed their stance on nuclear power have gone anti-nuclear, which is a tautology.

4. In summary, the basic meaning (tautology removed) is "I have heard from pro-nuclear energy funds that they have gone anti-nuclear."

Hope that wasn't too confusing! Sorry if I covered anything you already were aware of.

[Kenny同志]

Thank you Feishi for your rewrite and thank you Creamyhorror for your very detailed explanation.

The posts are very helpful.

[jbradfor]

complete '360s'

I've never understood that construction. If you do a 360, aren't you facing where you started? Shouldn't that be a 180?

[Kenny同志]

The speaker made a slip of the tongue.

[Gharial]

What concept would best describe this then? Excessive apposition? Unmarked parenthesis? Irradiated brains?

[aristotle1990]

[delete me]

[daofeishi]

What concept would best describe this then?

Excessive angular momentum