Proximity of the canal leading to port of X

[JACEK1]

Hello.

Proximity of the canal leading to port of X allows ship-owners’ biggest ships operating in sea X to call at the shipyard.

The general idea is that thanks to proximity of the canal leading to port of X, ship-owners’ biggest ships that operate in sea X may call at the shipyard.

Do you think that the bolded sentence in question makes sense to you?

Thank you.

 

[teechar]

I understand it, but it's not well written.

 

[Tdol]

I would say the proximity and the port.

 

[Raymott]

I can't see a bolded part.
I also can't see the relation between the proximity of a canal and the ability to use it for large ships.

 

[J&K Tutoring]

Proximity of the canal leading to port of X allows ship-owners’ biggest ships operating in sea X to call at the shipyard.

Your basic sentence: "Proximity allows ships to call" is fine, grammatically. It's in the details where things are be a bit messy.

1. "the canal" What canal? We only use the definite article after new items have been mentioned and defined.

2. "port of x" What does that mean? Is "x" the name a city with a port, or is "port of x" the name of a place? Perhaps 'the port at X' would be better.

3. ship owners' should not be hyphenated. It's also redundant. All ships belong to someone. '...allows the biggest ships operating...'

4. "sea X" needs some revision, depending on how this body of water is named. It should be either the X Sea, or the Sea of X.

5. The way your sentence is structured, it seems as if proximity is somehow related to the size of the ships, and that doesn't make much sense.

I think this may be a case where generalization just doesn't work. Can you give more specific information about the geography of your example?

 

[GoesStation]

Proximity of the canal leading to port of X allows ship-owners’ biggest ships operating in sea X to call at the shipyard.

<snip>

3. ship owners' should not be hyphenated.

Ship-owners​ is an attributive compound noun and should be hyphenated.

 

[J&K Tutoring]

I'll stand corrected- sort of. It looks strange to me hyphenated, so I checked to see what Swan has to say.

The first thing he says agrees with GoesStation.

But then he goes on to finish with a paragraph titled: Are hyphens disappearing? He ends with: "If one is not sure whether to use a hyphen between words or not, the best thing is to look in a dictionary, or to write the words without a hyphen."

I use hyphens when the meaning could be confused without it, such as in, 'He is a big truck driver.' Is he a driver of a big truck (big-truck driver), or is he a big man who drives a truck (big truck-driver)? The meaning of the OP's phrase would not be confusing without the hyphen.

 

[GoesStation]

You're not alone in suffering from hyphen confusion. Lately I've noticed them sprouting all over the place, with writers choosing (incorrectly) to insert one between any two words which can ever be joined by one.

 

[JACEK1]

The thing is that the port is located very close to the estuary or mouth of a river which flows into the sea. The port, thanks to being placed so close to the sea, is in a very advantageous situation because the canal leading from the sea to the port is not a long one, hence, it enables the biggest ships to call at the port.

Maybe I should write like this:

It is because of a short distance from the mouth of a river to the port that ship-owners’ biggest ships that operate in sea X may call at the shipyard.

 

[Raymott]

The length of the canal should be irrelevant as long as it is wide and deep enough. It may be the case that the closer to the mouth of a river, the wider and deeper it is, but I doubt this is always the case.
Also, the Panama Canal is long, but can accommodate large ships.