0
  1. Those are the passengers who are going to get on board at 9PM.

  2. Those are the passengers going to get on board at 9PM.

I heard that it's wrong to remove "who are" from sentence 1, so sentence 2 is wrong, but I really don't understand why 2 is wrong. Can we think "who are" is implied between "the passengers" and "going"? Could you please explain why?

Is it because there is a difference in meaning between 1 and 2 if "who are" is omitted or because we don't know whether "who were" or "who are" is omitted in sentence 2?

Q1) Is this because sentence 2 can be read in two ways as below?

A. Those are the passengers (who are) going to get on board at 9PM

B. Those are the passengers (who were) going to get on board at 9PM

If my guess is correct, depending on situation, can 2 be correct as well if people are in a situation where sentence 2 is only read as A?

Q2) But why is it correct to omit "who are" from sentence 1 if other verbs such as moving or intending are used instead of "going"?

3

2 Answers 2

1

This is the situation when you omit the going to:

Those are the passengers who are boarding at 9PM. - OK
Those are the passengers boarding at 9PM - OK.

The first one is a relative clause with who as a relative pronoun. The second is a participial phrase, with boarding as the participle.

If you use going to as a normal verb, the same rules apply:

Those are the passengers who are going to Jakarta. - OK
Those are the passengers going to Jakarta - OK.

If you use going to as an auxiliary verb, it doesn't work as a participial clause any more, because going to is functioning as an auxiliary verb, not as a participle.

Those are the passengers who are going to board at 9PM. - OK
Those are the passengers going to board at 9PM - NOT OK.

2
  • Because of the futuristic sense of "going to do", without "who are", "Those are the passengers going to board at 9PM" seems to be read as either "...passengers (who were) going..." and "...passengers (who are) going...". I think this is the reason why your last sentence doesn't work without "who are". What do you think? Thank you very much for your help and hope you will give an opinion on my comment.
    – GKK
    Apr 15, 2020 at 1:13
  • @Zenith no, it's nothing to do with were/are. "going to board at 9pm" doesn't work as a participial phrase because going to is not a participle.
    – JavaLatte
    Apr 15, 2020 at 3:36
1

[1] Those are the passengers [who are going to get on board at 9pm].

[2] Those are [the passengers going to get on board at 9pm].

The bracketed element in [1] is a relative clause modifying "passengers". It picks out a subset of passengers from any others.

From a grammatical point of view, [2] is ambiguous. The bracketed element could be a noun phrase with the same meaning as [1], where it describes a situation, or it could be a clause describing an event.

9
  • Thanks a lot, BillJ. Would you answer on my comment? I understand your way of analysing both sentences, but there's still something I'm not sure about. Does this sentence "it could be a clause describing an event" imply [2] could be seen as the shortened version of "Those are the passengers who were going to get on board at 9pm" ?, and do you think [2] does make sense and sound natural? I've asked some native speakers about sentence 2, and only one of them told me [2] does make sene if we see [2] as the reduced version of [1], but the other said [2] doesn't work at all without "who are".
    – GKK
    Apr 15, 2020 at 7:26
  • 1
    @Zenith No, the shortened interpretation of [2] is the same as [1], where the noun phrase simply describes a static situation of some passengers who intend to get on board. The other interpretation, where the element is a clause, describes an event where the passengers are actually going in order to get on board i.e. they are physically moving.
    – BillJ
    Apr 15, 2020 at 7:45
  • So since they can be interpreted in two ways, is [2] a wrong sentence? This is the sentence I should avoid writing? and Could even [1] can be interpreted as describing an event where the passangers are actually going in order to get on board?
    – GKK
    Apr 15, 2020 at 7:59
  • If you don't think as for [1], [1] can describe the event where the passangers are actually going in order to get on board, could you explain why? And does the amgibuousness of [2] make the sentence wrong? or can [2] be used according to context? I'm so sorry, I have asked a lot of things. I'd be very happy if you answer them. Thank you very much.
    – GKK
    Apr 15, 2020 at 8:06
  • 1
    @Zenith Personally, I'd avoid [2] because of the ambiguity. In [1] the relative clause can only apply to passengers, not an event where the passengers are actually moving.
    – BillJ
    Apr 15, 2020 at 8:09

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .