The suit came back from the cleaner's is looking like new.

Question

Good morning.Please have a look at this sentence:The suit came back from the cleaner's is looking like new.1) Is it grammatically correct?2) I think that in such a construct we should use the past participle (so called 'third form'):The suit come back from the cleaner's is looking like new.Is it better now?3) Nevertheless, it sounds strange for my non-native ear. It might mean nothing but let me check...The suit received [back?] from the cleaner's is looking like new.Can we use phrasal verbs like 'come back' in such situations or is it better to replace them with regular verbs like above?

CalifJim · Accepted Answer

ReegisThe suit came back from the cleaner's is looking like new.

Reegis1) Is it grammatically correct?

No. came back from the cleaner's is (or is attempting to be) a relative clause that modifies suit. suit is the subject of that relative clause; therefore, it must be expressed with a relative pronoun (which or that).

The suit that came back from the cleaner's is looking like new.

English does not allow a relative clause without a relative pronoun if the antecedent is the subject of the relative clause. [Or, to be extra precise, it's not allowed in standard English. This structure is sometimes used in some (relatively few) regions of the English-speaking world.]

Alternately, came is the verb of the main clause and looking like new is a participle clause that says how the suit came back from the cleaner's. In that case, is must be omitted.

The suit came back from the cleaner's looking like new.

Reegis2) I think that in such a construct we should use the past participle (so called 'third form'):
The suit come back from the cleaner's is looking like new.
Is it better now?

Participle clauses are headed by present or past participles. In effect, these are active and passive participles. For example, if the verb is take, then these participles are taking (active) and taken (passive). As it turns out, you can't use the passive (i.e., past) participle in this role if the verb can't be made passive, i.e., can't take a direct object. That leaves out come (passive participle of come) in the given sentence, so it can't be done as you propose.

Reegis3) Nevertheless, it sounds strange for my non-native ear. It might mean nothing but let me check...
The suit received [back?] from the cleaner's is looking like new.

receive takes an object, so that's possible. However, it's not as idiomatic as the two solutions I suggested earlier in this post. 'received back' is not used much, but it's not wrong.

CJ

GPY · Answer

ReegisThe suit that came back from the cleaner's is looking like new.
1) Is it grammatically correct?

No, it should be as amended.

To me, the apostrophe seems a bit fussy here. I would write "from the cleaners".

ReegisThe suit come back from the cleaner's is looking like new.
Is it better now?

No, it is still wrong.

Reegis3) Nevertheless, it sounds strange for my non-native ear. It might mean nothing but let me check...
The suit received [back?] from the cleaner's is looking like new.

This is possible. The difference is that "suit" is the subject of "came", so the relative pronoun cannot be omitted, while it is the (logical) object of "received", so the relative pronoun (and "be" verb) can be omitted: "the suit received" = "the suit that was received".

(Cross-posted.)

The suit came back from the cleaner's is looking like new.

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions