From Google's dictionary:
ac·cre·tion
noun /əˈkrēSHən/
accretions, plural
The process of growth or increase, typically by the gradual accumulation of additional layers or matter
- the accretion of sediments in coastal mangroves
- the growing accretion of central government authority
A thing formed or added by such growth or increase
- about one-third of California was built up by accretions
- the city has a historic core surrounded by recent accretions
The coming together and cohesion of matter under the influence of gravitation to form larger bodies
So the sentence in question is wrong for two reasons; firstly, accretion is a noun, whereas your sentence uses it as an adjective. Secondly, accretion seems to refer to natural buildup, not the act of intentionally saving (from your example) money.
I think the word that you're looking for might be accrue. From Merriam-Webster, a definition of accrue:
To accumulate or be added periodically (interest accrues on a daily basis)
So, you could say:
James bought this car using the accrued amount he had saved.
It’s something else. I might not agree with Trump, but he is not incoherent or committing grammatical errors. When a person speaks extemporaneously or “off the cuff”, unless they are well trained in the art of public speaking, this example is a typical result. What you are seeing is mostly the three common forms of self-interruption:
- parenthesis, interrupting to insert a clarifying remark
- self-repair, interrupting to go back and edit an error
- filler, interrupting to signal that the speaker is thinking: words like uh, like, and you know
A transcription that preserves every instance of self-repair and filler, such as this one, is probably intended to ridicule rather than to preserve the utterance. The usual practice in journalism is to eliminate self-repair and filler in quotations unless there is something significant about a misstatement.
Also, in a transcription, the audible and somatic (gestural) content of the utterance is lost. Without that information, the utterance can seem much more random to the reader than it would have to the audience.
Trump’s thoughts are poorly organized, but he does a remarkably good job of remembering where he was before each self-interruption. In computer science terms, he commits no stack overflow errors.
The transcript below makes the parenthetical structure of the example clearer with indentation, and de-emphasizes the self-repair and filler. What emerges is a coherent utterance, close to what the audience would have comprehended.
Look, having nuclear
—my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart
—you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world
—it’s true!
—but when you're a conservative Republican they try—oh, do they do a number—that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune—you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged
—but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me—it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are
(nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power
and that was 35 years ago;
he would explain the power of what’s going to happen and he was right
—who would have thought?),
but when you look at what’s going on with the four prisoners
—now it used to be three, now it’s four—but when it was three and even now, I would have said it’s all in the messenger; fellas,
and it is fellas because, you know, they don’t, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years
—but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.
Best Answer
The particular sentence is a poor attempt at making an example of a sentence that is both grammatical but very difficult to process because of the multiple center embedding.
Spelled out the sentence is supposed to mean:
or
To make it more understandable, just look at one embedding at a time ("Women men meet die." "Men girls love meet women.").
All these are legal (grammatical) transformations. But juggling all the references leads to the difficulty in processing by a person.
A more intuitive example (makes more intuitive sense once separated all out) is:
which expands more understandably to
Presumably the sausage machine model allows easy processing of such center embedded sentences, so the inference is that the sausage machine is not the best model of processing that actual human brains do.