that are (2)

[ShirleyLing]

In this room, there are five people that are unemployed.

Would dropping "that are" cause some ungrammaticality or change the meaning of the sentence?

[mykwyner]

When referring to people, we generally use the relative pronoun who. ...five people who are unemployed.

[ShirleyLing]

So, would dropping "that/who are" cause some ungrammaticality or change the meaning of the sentence?

[mykwyner]

It would sound awkward to my ear unless you changed the position of the adjective.

"In this room there are five unemployed people."

[5jj]

So, almost identical answers to the similar question you posed in the other thread.

[ShirleyLing]

David Cameron: we will offer the radical new direction the country is crying out for - Telegraph

But the crisis we face today is not just about debt – it's about jobs. There are already two and a half million people unemployed. That could rise as high as three million.

[ShirleyLing]

Is there a rule for when to move an adjective to right after a noun?

[5jj]

Is there a rule for when to move an adjective to the right after a noun?

It's not a case of 'moving the adjective to the right'. It is dropping the relative pronoun and BE before a participle or adjective.

There is only the common-sense rule not to do it - it sometimes sounds unnatural.

[Raymott]

Would dropping "that are" cause some ungrammaticality or change the meaning of the sentence?

No, it wouldn't.

[ShirleyLing]

So, the example cited in post #6 (from some newspaper) is error free?