Take the 2-minute tour ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

is this sentence correct? It starts a small paragraph. My question is, does it violate any English rules? If it does, which ones? If it doesn´t, which rules validate it? It sounds perfectly fine to me, but someone told me it did not follow correct conditional sentence structure. I´m a little confused.

The sentence is:

Payments coming from a pension trust account are taxable.

Someone told me it would have to be, "Payments that are coming from a pension trust account are taxable."

The first sentence seems perfectly fine to me. Just can´t find any English sentence structure rules to validate it. Is it fine to omit the verb to be? If it is, then when is it ok to do so? Any input would help.

share|improve this question
    
Thanks to all who answered. I understand now. Thank you so much for clearing it up. Someone was leading me to believe I broke a sentence structure rule and I had no way to justify why I didn`t. But am clear on it now. –  user9316 May 30 '11 at 3:39

2 Answers 2

Number one, the sentence is fine. Passive verbs and their pronouns are often implied rather than explicitly stated: "A Boy [Who Is] Named Sue."

Number two, that's not a conditional sentence. Conditional sentence take the form "If x, [then] y." "If a payment comes from a pension trust account, it is taxable," would be a conditional sentence. Your sentence is a simple logical statement, along the lines of "All x that are y are also z."

share|improve this answer

This sentence seems perfectly fine to me. You did not omit the verb to be, you said "Pensions ... are taxable".

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.