0

Yesterday I received an email with a weird construction.

I have a 1X40HQ I would like pulled from Location to Location.

1x40HQ refers to a container.

For me, the verb in the past tense after "would like" sounds odd. I put it into a few grammar checker tolls. In Grammarly, no mistakes were found. In Ginger and scribens, the error was spotted only after sentence separation(adding period).

I have a 1X40HQ**.** I would like pulled from Location(rail) to Location.

I started thinking that maybe these tools don't find mistakes because they treat it as perfect tense. This makes sense if adding period only, would find the error(not in Grammarly, though).

So my question is.

Does my logic make any sense?

Or maybe there is something else that I simply don't know?

Like for example, dropping "to be" (because it is implied) in causal writing/talk?

What are your thoughts?

11
  • Think of it as "I have a 1X40HQ that I would like to have pulled..." Does that help?
    – stangdon
    Dec 23, 2021 at 15:06
  • "Pulled" is a past participle verb and "pulled from location to location" is thus a past-participial clause. Past-participials like this are 'bare' passives, as evident from the admissibility of a by phrase. The bracketing is "[a 1X40HQ [(that) I would like [___ pulled from location to location]]]", where the gap notation '___' refers to "1X40HQ" functioning as head of the noun phrase and the semantic (understood) subject of the subordinate "pulled" clause.
    – BillJ
    Dec 23, 2021 at 15:27
  • @BillJ Thanks. By " as evident from the admissibility of a by phrase" Do you mean that it is allowed to use it here? for example "I have a 1X40HQ**.** I would like pulled from Location(rail) to Location by someone" ? but it is not included as we tend not to when it is NONIDENTIFYING INFORMATION? For rest, I need some more time to sink it into my brain and do additional reading. If I would have an additional question. I will be back. It makes totally sense thank you for your help! Dec 23, 2021 at 16:15
  • @stangdon For sure, it sounds better for me, but what is the logic behind it? Dec 23, 2021 at 16:15
  • Yes, that's right. Such passive clauses are called 'short passives' because they don't have a by phrase.
    – BillJ
    Dec 23, 2021 at 17:09

2 Answers 2

1

I have a 1X40HQ [(that) I would like ___ [pulled from location to location]].

This is quite a tricky sentence to analyse. There are two important points to make:

First, the bit in outer brackets is a relative clause modifying "1X40HQ".

Second, the bit in inner brackets is a 'bare' passive clause in a complex catenative construction functioning as complement of "like". The intervening noun phrase, marked by the gap notation '___', is the syntactic object of "like" (i.e. "1X40HQ") in the relative clause as well as the semantic (understood) subject of the passive clause.

Note that "pulled" is a past participle verb here, which explains why "pulled from location to location" is a past-participial clause. Past-participials like this are called 'bare' passives because they lack the usual "be" verb, but they are clearly passive as evident from the admissibility of a by phrase.

1
  • Thank you @BillJ I will dive into it deeper tomorrow. Once more time thank you very much. Dec 26, 2021 at 18:39
1

I have a 1X40HQ I would like pulled from Location to Location.

The original sentence is fine.

Edit after comments from @BillJ

I would like pulled from Location to Location has a similar form as the following example from CambridgeDictionary

used in requests:

[ + past participle ] I would like the whole lot finished by the weekend. [emphasis added]

On the other hand, adding a full stop after 1X40HQ, as shown in your 2nd example, would create a fragment after that full stop.

*I would like pulled from Location to Location

3
  • The omission of the subordinator "that" does not make it a 'reduced' relative clause, but simply a 'bare' one. A so-called reduced relative clause has a non-finite clause as modifier, whereas "I would like pulled from Location to Location" is, of course, a finite relative clause.
    – BillJ
    Dec 23, 2021 at 15:58
  • @Seowjooheng Singapore Thank you. I was looking for this but somehow missed this Like BillJ mentioned it is a passive voice which for some reason I didn't even consider. Dec 23, 2021 at 16:20
  • @Maciej Wakowski, you are welcome. Please remember to accept the answer if you are satisfied with it. Dec 23, 2021 at 16:30

You must log in to answer this question.

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