katazina (asker) Jul 21, 2010:

Thanks to everybody. It's about the collaboration among Poland, Israel and the USA; the author claims that the Polish troops are now a trustworthy partner due to their engagement in Iraq and Afganistan; that's why the Israelis train them.

British Diana Jul 19, 2010:

Kim and Deborah You say that the sentence can be rewritten thus: "The security of Polish forces has (led to) the Israeli government running a number of training programmes for Polish troops".

Would this be "to see" in the meaning "make sure" as in "Please see that the lights are switched off before you leave" (DCE meaning Nr 22)?
In this case the meaning of the sentence could be that because the Polish troops are now trustworthy (not only allies, also actively fighting against terror), the Israelis think it is worthwhile to train them.
Which is rather the opposite of what you are saying, or have I not quite understood something?

Kim Metzger Jul 19, 2010:

Bashiqa I think the Polish government was concerned and therefore requested training.

Bashiqa Jul 19, 2010:

@KM Do we know that the Israelis are 'concerned'?

Deborah Hoffman Jul 19, 2010:

ah Yes, that makes sense.

katazina (asker) Jul 19, 2010:

I'm translating a manuscript The author is British. This single sentence is a whole paragraph.

Kim Metzger Jul 19, 2010:

Deborah Yes, I think it's a British thing and even then somewhat awkward. "The security of Polish forces has seen the Israeli government run a number of training programmes for Polish troops." Better: concern for the security of ... has led to ...

Deborah Hoffman Jul 19, 2010:

what does it mean? If the sentence is ok, then what does it mean that the security of Polish forces has seen the Israeli government run training programs? Usually it's either a physical person (security guard) or a time period (the nineteenth century saw a number of revolutions in Europe" that sees something. Or is this a British-US thing? The sentence just does not make sense to me.

David Russi Jul 19, 2010:

I agree with Kim Just botched

Kim Metzger Jul 19, 2010:

Nothing wrong with the sentence. Perfectly standard English. It's a matter of ellipsis: omitting "that" after now.

Stephanie Ezrol Jul 19, 2010:

The text seems to be an English translation of an original in another language, or not written by a native English speaker. Is that the case? The sentence before and after might help us figure out what the author is saying.