経済記事

質問

経済記事で分からない文章があります。
SchaefflerというドイツのベアリングメーカーがContinentalという自動車部品会社を買収しようとしたけど経済危機に巻き込まれて深刻な問題が出てきたという話です。
http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13278374

(1) Schaeffler’s big mistake, however, was to structure a bid so Panglossian that it could have failed in any number of ways, almost all of which have now come to pass.
Panglossianというのは固有名詞ではなくて楽観的な人（見方）という意味のようです。
in any number of以下が特に分かりません。

(2) But people familiar with the firm reckon it could have pulled off the deal had it been able to limit itself to buying half of Continental.
構文が分かりません。

回答No.2

noname#202629 · ベストアンサー

(1) Schaeffler’s big mistake, however, was to structure a bid so Panglossian that it could have failed in any number of ways, almost all of which have now come to pass.

it could have failed in any number of ways
は仮定法ですね。「幾つかの手法で失敗をしたに違いない（が、実際には失敗していなかった・・その当時は経済が絶好調であったため失敗しているように見えなかったが・・実は・・）」
almost all of which have now come to pass.
「そのすべてが、（リーマンブラザーズが破産して冷え切った経済状態の）今から思えば、思い当たる節がある。」
のようなニュアンスです。

(2) But people familiar with the firm reckon it could have pulled off the deal had it been able to limit itself to buying half of Continental

But people familiar with the firm reckon it could have pulled off the deal, if it had been able to limit itself to buying half of Continental.

ifを省略して助動詞が文頭に置かれる倒置文です。

回答No.1

kztk

とりあえず(2)だけですが、
But people <familiar with the firm> reckon
(that) [it could have pulled off the deal]
ここまでが主節。
その次は仮定法でifを省略したことによる倒置だと思います。
had it been able to limit itself to buying half of Continental.
↓
if it had been able to ...