0
JungKim Posted 11 years ago
Grammar

We've got companies shipping thousands of jobs overseas.

This is what Donald Trump said in a talk show:
First, we have to cut government spending. It's out of control, totally out of control. Then we've got to lower corporate taxes. It's become impossible to do business in this country. We've got companies shipping thousands of jobs overseas. That's got to end, and it's going to end. Remember that. It's going to end.

In this context, can he have said instead this?
We've got companies ship thousands of jobs overseas. 
  

Top answer

Yes. Bu the way he said it stresses that it is happening right now .

— Clive

  • Yes.
  • Bu the way he said it stresses that it is happening right now .
Free · every Monday

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.

32 Answers
0
Yes.
Bu the way he said it stresses that it is happening right now.
0
0
CliveYes.Bu the way he said it stresses that it is happening right now.
And it is going on and on and on.
0
0
JungKimWe've got companies shipping thousands of jobs overseas. ...
In this context, can he have said instead this? We've got companies ship thousands of jobs overseas.
Pace Clive and Alphecca, no, you can't substitute that.

It's a reduced relative clause (Whiz-deletion) and you can't change anything in the original clause.

We'
0
0
Hmmm. I wouldn't say this is wrong.

We've got companies [who] ship thousands of jobs overseas.
0
0
CliveHmmm. I wouldn't say this is wrong. We've got companies [who] ship thousands of jobs overseas.
With the 'who' - OK.
Without the 'who' - Not.

The relative pronoun can't be omitted in the relative clause when it's the subject of the clause:

*He's the farmer had the tractor accident.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to
0
0
My two cents ...

"We've got companies ship thousands of jobs overseas" sounds impossible to me.
0
0
Just two? You could have made it at least five! Emotion: big smile

CJ
0
0
How about 'to ship' instead of 'shipping'?
0
0
JungKimHow about 'to ship' instead of 'shipping'?
That's correct, but it changes the meaning to something rather unusual:

... companies shipping jobs overseas ... ~ companies who are shipping jobs overseas...
... companies to ship jobs overseas ... ~ companies who serve the purpose of shipping jobs overseas...

In the second case one compa
0
0
JungKimHow about 'to ship' instead of 'shipping'?
For me, "We've got companies to ship thousands of jobs overseas" most likely means "We've caused/persuaded companies to transfer thousands of their jobs overseas".
0

Related Questions