# The train just arrived is from Boston.



## homotopy07

(1) The train *just arrived* is from Boston.

(2) The train *that just arrived* is from Boston.

(3) The train *that has just arrived* is from Boston.

Which is correct?

The following quote makes me think that #1 is correct:

Some more past participles can be used with active meanings, but only with adverbs:
The train *just arrived* at platform six is the delayed 13.15 from Hereford.
(Swan: _Practical English Usage_, 3rd edition, 409.4)

I think #2 is correct in American English.

I think #3 is correct in both American English and British English.


----------



## natkretep

Sentence 1 can work for me, but I regard it as informal.


----------



## kentix

I would say 2 is much more standard in American English than 1. 3 is also possible and more likely than 1.


----------



## dojibear

I like 2 the best, and 3 is okay. I consider 1 a mistake.


----------



## Roxxxannne

dojibear said:


> I like 2 the best, and 3 is okay. I consider 1 a mistake.


My thoughts exactly.


----------



## Andygc

I would say that you have changed the original sentence from acceptable to unacceptable in BE. As it was, it could easily be a station announcement.
The train just arrived at platform six is the delayed 13.15 from Hereford. 
The train just arrived is the delayed 13.15 from Hereford.


----------



## elroy

homotopy07 said:


> The train *just arrived* at platform six is the delayed 13.15 from Hereford.


 Both this and (1) sound wrong to me.


----------



## Andygc

So there is a linguistic difference between railway stations connected to those in Hereford, Herefordshire and Hereford, Colorado, and similarly between those connected to those in Boston, Lincolnshire and Boston, Massachusetts.


----------



## boozer

Grammatically, I find (1) acceptable. The question just asked is interesting...


----------



## tunaafi

boozer said:


> Grammatically, I find (1) acceptable. The question just asked is interesting...


It works with the transitive 'asked' used in a passive sense. I'm not sure that it works with intransitive 'arrive'.


----------



## boozer

Good point about the transitive 'asked'.   This pattern works much better with transitive verbs, though there is a marked tendency to force intransitive verbs to work in the same way - a tendency I myself have never liked.


----------



## Barque

natkretep said:


> Sentence 1 can work for me, but I regard it as informal.


I agree.


----------



## thetazuo

Hi. Is it more natural to say “The train, just *arrived* from Boston, is crowded with travel-worn passengers.”?
I think putting the “arrived” clause in commas makes the sentence work better.


----------



## Barque

I think putting in the commas makes it sound unnatural. If you want to keep the commas, I suggest replacing "arrived" with "in".


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you, Barque.


> “The other pupil, *just arrived from Gori*, was the semi-psychotic Simon Ter-Petrossian, aged


The other pupil, just arrived from Gori, was the ...
But why is the above example natural while mine is not? Aren’t they essentially the same usage?


----------



## Lianxin

_The train_ from _Boston_ has _just arrived_.


----------



## PaulQ

thetazuo said:


> But why is the above example natural while mine is not?


The off-setting of a phrase, word, or clause, by commas is an indication that it is "non-defining". The question of whether a phrase, word, or clause, is often (*often *does not mean "always") to see in writing - hence the commas. In spoken English it is demonstrated by pauses.

The train just arrived = "The train that has just arrived", and is defining.

In “The other pupil, *just arrived from Gori*, was the semi-psychotic Simon Ter-Petrossian," " *just arrived from Gori*," is indicated as being non-defining.


> Aren’t they essentially the same usage?


I don't think they are.


----------



## sound shift

From a grammatical point of view, (1) sounds borderline to me. But the extended version - 'The train just arrived at platform 6 is the delayed 13.15 from Hereford' - is fine by me.

There's more chance of (2) in AmE than in BrE, I think. I couldn't use (2).

(3) uses a construction that I'm used to hearing, so from a grammatical point of view I can't fault it.


----------



## thetazuo

PaulQ said:


> The off-setting of a phrase, word, or clause, by commas is an indication that it is "non-defining". The question of whether a phrase, word, or clause, is often (*often *does not mean "always") to see in writing - hence the commas. In spoken English it is demonstrated by pauses.
> 
> The train just arrived = "The train that has just arrived", and is defining.
> 
> In “The other pupil, *just arrived from Gori*, was the semi-psychotic Simon Ter-Petrossian," " *just arrived from Gori*," is indicated as being non-defining.
> I don't think they are.


Thank you. But I’m afraid your idea is lost on me. I have put “just arrived from Boston” in the commas, so it should be non-defining, shouldn’t it?
I still don’t see the difference between “just arrived from Boston” and “just arrived from Gori” except that they have just arrived from different places.


----------



## PaulQ

thetazuo said:


> I have put “just arrived from Boston” in the commas, so it should be non-defining, shouldn’t it?


 No. Simply putting a word, phrase or clause in parenthesis does not change its function magically - it is put into parenthesis *because it is already *non-defining.


----------



## thetazuo

PaulQ said:


> No. Simply putting a word, phrase or clause in parenthesis does not change its function magically - it is put into parenthesis *because it is already *non-defining.


Thank you. I get it. But I don’t quite follow this reasoning:


PaulQ said:


> The train just arrived = "The train that has just arrived", and is defining.


Because I can say the same about the pupil example:
The pupil just arrived= “The pupil that had just arrived”, and is defining.
Could you clarify it?


----------



## PaulQ

thetazuo said:


> Could you clarify it?


In basic terms, "If you can remove the word, phrase, or clause without materially altering the sentence, then the word, phrase, or clause is non--defining."

It is recognised that it is not always simple to make that judgement. If the word, phrase, or clause can be prefixed by "and by the way ..." it is probably non-defining.

“The other pupil,[...] was the semi-psychotic Simon Ter-Petrossian," This still sounds good to me.

Defining: "The train *just arrived* is from Boston." 
"The train is from Boston."  Which train is he talking about?


----------



## homotopy07

Thank you all.


----------



## RM1(SS)

kentix said:


> I would say 2 is much more standard in American English than 1. 3 is also possible and more likely than 1.


But 1 does work.


----------



## thetazuo

PaulQ said:


> In basic terms, "If you can remove the word, phrase, or clause without materially altering the sentence, then the word, phrase, or clause is non--defining."
> 
> It is recognised that it is not always simple to make that judgement. If the word, phrase, or clause can be prefixed by "and by the way ..." it is probably non-defining.
> 
> “The other pupil,[...] was the semi-psychotic Simon Ter-Petrossian," This still sounds good to me.
> 
> Defining: "The train *just arrived* is from Boston."
> "The train is from Boston."  Which train is he talking about?


Thank you again. I see.
So do you think, in my sentence “The train, just *arrived* from Boston, is crowded with travel-worn passengers.”, the underlined part can only be defining so the commas should be dropped?


----------



## dojibear

thetazuo said:


> So do you think, in my sentence “The train, just *arrived* from Boston, is crowded with travel-worn passengers.”, the underlined part can only be defining so the commas should be dropped?


They key issue is *what are you trying to say?* This is a correct sentence, but here "just arrived from Boston" is adding information. It is *not* identifying which train this is. If you want to say "the train that just arrived from Boston", then this sentence is wrong.

This sentence says _The train (which just arrived from Boston) is crowded with travel-worn passengers._

Putting commas on both sides of a clause. I call it "making the clause a parenthetical comment". PaulQ calls it "making the clause non-defining". We use different words but we agree: the underlined clause can be removed without changing the sentence grammar.


----------



## thetazuo

dojibear said:


> If you want to say "the train that just arrived from Boston", then this sentence is wrong.


Thank you, doji. So if I want to say "the train that just arrived from Boston" (defining), is it correct to use “The train just *arrived* from Boston is crowded with travel-worn passengers.” (no comma)?


----------



## dojibear

thetazuo said:


> So if I want to say "the train *that* just arrived from Boston" (defining), is it correct to use “The train just *arrived* from Boston is crowded with travel-worn passengers.”


No. That is a grammar error. It's the same error you had in post #1. You need "that" before the phrase "just arrived from Boston". You even use *that* yourself, in telling us what you want to define. See above.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you again, doji.


PaulQ said:


> Defining: "The train *just arrived* is from Boston."


But PaulQ seems to be happy with the comma-free version.


----------



## dojibear

BE (British English) and AE (American English) have some differences. A few hundred words (lorry=truck, lift=elevator, mate=friend) and some small grammar differences. A whole lot of pronunciation differences. 

I would never disagree with PaulQ. He's an expert. But he speaks BE. 

So I think this sentence is okay in BE but questionable in AE, and downright incorrect in my dialect of AE.


----------



## PaulQ

thetazuo said:


> But PaulQ seems to be happy with the comma-free version.


You are failing to see the difference between
"The train *just arrived* is from Boston." -> "The train *just arrived*" is a noun clause and the subject
and
"The train*,* just *arrived* from Boston*,* is crowded with travel-worn passengers.” The sentence here is "The train*,* just *arrived* from Boston*,* is crowded with travel-worn passengers.” At least, that I how I and Dojibear can read it for the purpose of demonstrating parenthesis.


----------



## Myridon

PaulQ said:


> You are failing to see the difference between
> "The train *just arrived* is from Boston." -> "The train *just arrived*" is a noun clause and the subject
> and
> "The train*,* just *arrived* from Boston*,* is crowded with travel-worn passengers.” The sentence here is "The train*,* just *arrived* from Boston*,* is crowded with travel-worn passengers.” At least, that I how I and Dojibear can read it for the purpose of demonstrating parenthesis.


The first one seems to be using "just arrived" as a postpositional adjective - The just-arrived train is from Boston.  It's not parenthetical information, but is it meant to be descriptive or identifying?


----------



## PaulQ

It is identifying - there is no other reference to which train is meant. As Doji has pointed out there are a plethora of terms for the necessary identifying function of modifiers and their non-essential addition.

Often, as I said above, the line is not clear, and we can only work with the materials we have.


----------



## thetazuo

Thanks for the response, doji and Paul. 


PaulQ said:


> You are failing to see the difference between
> "The train *just arrived* is from Boston." -> "The train *just arrived*" is a noun clause and the subject
> and
> "The train*,* just *arrived* from Boston*,* is crowded with travel-worn passengers.” The sentence here is "The train*,* just *arrived* from Boston*,* is crowded with travel-worn passengers.” At least, that I how I and Dojibear can read it for the purpose of demonstrating parenthesis.


Are you suggesting the sentence “The train just *arrived* from Boston is crowded with travel-worn passengers” doesn’t work in BE as well because “The train just arrived from Boston” can’t be a noun clause and the subject?

Cross posted.


----------



## PaulQ

No. I was surprised at the distinction that was made between AE and BE.

BE is somewhat careless when it comes to identifying and non-identifying modifiers. AE is far better: In relative clauses, "that" precedes and identifying clause and ", which" a non-identifying. The "which clause" is always off-set with commas. (I suggest you adopt this.)  This approach can also be used with phrases which can be identifying and non-identifying (or indeed displaced but that is another matter.)

As such, it might clear things up if you tell me whether, in "The train *just arrived* is from Boston", *just arrived"* is identifying or non-identifying, i.e. is it essential or not.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you.


PaulQ said:


> As such, it might clear things up if you tell me whether, in "The train *just arrived* is from Boston", *just arrived"* is identifying or non-identifying, i.e. is it essential or not.


The “just arrived” in green is identifying in “The train *just arrived* is from Boston”, as you said in post 22.


thetazuo said:


> the sentence “The train just *arrived* from Boston is crowded with travel-worn passengers”


So you think the above sentence works, with the underlined part being identifying?


----------



## PaulQ

Yes. I think Dojibear's (valid) point was that if you are simply commenting on the number and state of the passengers, then “The train*,* just *arrived* from Boston*, *is crowded with travel-worn passengers” as it really does not matter where the train is from.

On the other hand, if the context were that up to this point, all trains had arrived empty and on time, then "*{*The train just *arrived* from Boston*} *is crowded with travel-worn passengers” is correct as the particular train needs identification as it raises further questions.


----------



## Mnemon

homotopy07 said:


> (1) The train *just arrived* is from Boston.



From a grammatical point of view, this sentence is wrong. The relative pronoun can be left out if it refers to the object of the verb, but not if it refers to the subject of a verb. Here "the train" is the subject and therefor you need the relative pronoun.

The train *just arrived* is from Boston. 
The train *that just arrived* is from Boston. 

However, you can say:

The student *that *I teach all come from the UK.  ("the students" is the object of the verb "teach")
The student I teach all come from the UK. 




> The train*,* just arrived at platform 6*,* is the delayed 13.15 from Hereford


To me, this is OK, because the whole segment "just arrived at platform 6" is the appositive phrase. (commas are essential)
But I think there is something special about this sentence. The part "The train just arrived at platform 6" without commas does look like the noun clause playing the role of the subject of the sentence and that's interesting. 
[Edit: typo]


----------



## Roxxxannne

Mnemon said:


> From grammatical point of view, this sentence is wrong. The relative pronoun can be left out if it refers to the object of the verb, but not if it refers to the subject of a verb. Here "the train" is the subject and therefor you need the relative pronoun.
> 
> The train *just arrived* is from Boston.
> The train *that just arrived* is from Boston.
> 
> However, you can say:
> 
> The student *that *I teach all come from the UK.  ("the students" is the object of the verb "teach")
> The student I teach all come from the UK.


But 
This motorcycle that I'm fixing now belongs to James:  'That' distinguishes this motorcycle from all the others that I.m also in the process of fixing.
This motorcycle, which I'm fixing now, had brake pads that were all shot to hell: The listener has no idea how many other motorcycles are in my shop.


----------



## homotopy07

dojibear said:


> I consider 1 a mistake.


Hi, dojibear. Would you say Swan's example sentence in post #1 is wrong?


----------



## lingobingo

The train just arrived at platform six is the delayed 13.15 from Hereford.​
This is typical of Tannoy announcements at British railway stations (as pointed out in #6). It’s not typical of how someone might say the same thing in normal conversation — nor was it meant to be an example of that.

The point being made in Swan’s book is that “*some … past participles can be used with active meanings, but only with adverbs”*.

The examples he gives are:

a well-read person (BUT NOT _a read person_)​a much-travelled man​recently-arrived immigrants​The train just arrived at platform six is the delayed 13.15 from Hereford​


----------



## homotopy07

lingobingo said:


> The train just arrived at platform six is the delayed 13.15 from Hereford.​
> This is typical of Tannoy announcements at British railway stations (as pointed out in #6). It’s not typical of how someone might say the same thing in normal conversation — nor was it meant to be an example of that.


Thanks, lingo.    Is the following version unnatural in normal conversation?

The train*,* just arrived at platform six*,* is the delayed 13.15 from Hereford.

I would take this sentence to mean:

The train*,* which (has) just arrived at platform six*,* is the delayed 13.15 from Hereford.
(The underlined part is a non-defining relative clause.)


----------



## lingobingo

No, it doesn’t sound natural as part of a conversation. And if you’re specifying precisely which train that one is, you’re being very specific. It makes no sense to make it a non-defining clause.

Is that the train we’re here to meet?​No. The one that’s just pulled up at platform 6 is the 13.15 from Hereford, arriving 20 minutes late!​


----------



## kentix

Normal conversation:

The train that just arrived at platform six is the train from Hereford I've been waiting for.


----------



## homotopy07

lingobingo said:


> No,


Thanks, lingo.   I wrote "*un*natural". 


homotopy07 said:


> Is the following version *un*natural in normal conversation?


----------



## homotopy07

kentix said:


> Normal conversation:
> 
> The train that just arrived at platform six is the train from Hereford I've been waiting for.


Thanks, kentix.


----------



## manfy

homotopy07 said:


> Thanks, lingo.    Is the following version unnatural in normal conversation?
> 
> The train*,* just arrived at platform six*,* is the delayed 13.15 from Hereford.


Yes, unnatural and wrong. If you need a Swan rule as proof, you can go to_ Practical English Usage_ 474.6 (in 2nd edition):


> *474.6 leaving out object pronouns*
> In identifying relative clauses, we often leave out object pronouns, especially
> in an informal style. In non-identifying clauses *this is not possible*.


Of course, then there are still those 'exceptions to the rule", but those are usually called _non-standard English_ or _colloquial English_.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you again, Paul.


PaulQ said:


> *as* the particular train needs identification *as* it raises further questions.


By the way, do you mean “*because* the particular train needs identification *because* it raises further questions as to why this specific train is crowded”?


----------



## PaulQ

PaulQ said:


> "*{*The train just *arrived* from Boston*} *is crowded with travel-worn passengers” is correct *because *the particular train needs identification *because* it (=the statement that "[it] is crowded with travel-worn passengers”) raises further questions.


----------



## thetazuo

Thanks a lot, Paul.  


PaulQ said:


> as it raises further questions.


But what further questions are they? For example?
Sorry if this question is stupid.


----------



## homotopy07

manfy said:


> Yes, unnatural and wrong. If you need a Swan rule as proof, you can go to_ Practical English Usage_ 474.6 (in 2nd edition):
> 
> Of course, then there are still those 'exceptions to the rule", but those are usually called _non-standard English_ or _colloquial English_.


Thanks, manfy.  Is the following sentence correct?

*These articles, written several years ago, have been published in several popular magazines.*
English Language Centre


----------



## manfy

homotopy07 said:


> *These articles, written several years ago, have been published in several popular magazines.*
> English Language Centre


 Nice counter!
Yes, it sounds fine to me, but I'd actually write it without commas, which allows me to look at it as a reduced relative clause, i.e. with ellided [that were]:
*These articles [that were] written several years ago have been published in several popular magazines.*

I'd say that _adjective clause_ and _relative clause_ are overlapping concepts and at this very moment I can't think of an example where the difference matters. But I'm confident that there are such sentences where the difference matters or else these two terms would not exist.


----------



## lingobingo

The train … is the delayed 13.15 from Hereford.  Which train?
The train just arrived at platform six is the delayed 13.15 from Hereford.  Ah, that train!

These articles … have been published in several popular magazines. 
These articles, written several years ago, have been published in several popular magazines.


----------



## homotopy07

Thanks, manfy and lingo.


----------

