Return to Answer

• [11.i ] I've promised to help them [ and help them I will ].

 
• [11.ii ] It's odd that Diane should have said that, if [ say it she did ].

Inflection with perfect have

 

A special issue arises when the preposed element is a complement of perfect have. Compare:

 

[25]

 

• i. He said he wouldn't tell them, [ but tell/told them he has ].

 
• ii. He denies he has told them, [ but tell/told them he has ].

 

Although have normally takes a past participle, it is the plain form of the verb that is preferred in [i ]. The past participle is preferred in [ii ], where it has been used in the preceding clause, but even here the plain form tell is acceptable.

• [11.i ] I've promised to help them [ and help them I will ].

• [11.ii ] It's odd that Diane should have said that, if [ say it she did ].

Inflection with perfect have

A special issue arises when the preposed element is a complement of perfect have. Compare:

[25]

• i. He said he wouldn't tell them, [ but tell/told them he has ].

• ii. He denies he has told them, [ but tell/told them he has ].

Although have normally takes a past participle, it is the plain form of the verb that is preferred in [i ]. The past participle is preferred in [ii ], where it has been used in the preceding clause, but even here the plain form tell is acceptable.

1. and build upon that, but build they have. -- [original]
2. and build upon that, but built they have.

In general, both versions are acceptable in today's standard English.

But in this specific example, there would often be a preference for version #1, which is the original version that had used "build":

• 1. and build upon that, but build they have. -- [original]

Version #1 would often be preferred because the second "build" would then match the first "build" which was used in the previous clause, and that would give a rhetoric effect which would often be desirable by the speaker.

Note: A related answer post to this grammar issue is: “Wrote it I did” Is this grammatical?

LONG VERSION

Your example uses complement preposing in the second clause, where the preposed element is a verb phrase (VP). Usually the second clause will involve an auxiliary verb when the preposed element is a VP.

Here are some typical examples. The 2002 CGEL, page 1376:

• [11.i ] I've promised to help them [ and help them I will ].

• [11.ii ] It's odd that Diane should have said that, if [ say it she did ].

The preposed VP in [11.i ] is "help them", and in [11.ii ] it is "say it". Notice that the nucleus of the second clause in both examples end with an auxiliary: "will" for [11.i ], and "did" for [11.ii ].

Here are their corresponding versions that don't have the preposing:

• A.i. I've promised to help them and I will help them.
• A.ii. It's odd that Diane should have said that, if [ she said it ] / [ she did say it ].

But when the auxiliary verb is the perfect "have" and the preposed element is its complement, then both the past-participle form and the plain form of the verb are acceptable.

The 2002 CGEL page 1381:

Inflection with perfect have

A special issue arises when the preposed element is a complement of perfect have. Compare:

[25]

• i. He said he wouldn't tell them, [ but tell/told them he has ].

• ii. He denies he has told them, [ but tell/told them he has ].

Although have normally takes a past participle, it is the plain form of the verb that is preferred in [i ]. The past participle is preferred in [ii ], where it has been used in the preceding clause, but even here the plain form tell is acceptable.

NOTE: The 2002 CGEL is the 2002 reference grammar by Huddleston and Pullum (et al.), The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language.

1. and build upon that, but build they have. -- [original]
2. and build upon that, but built they have.

In general, both versions are acceptable in today's standard English.

But in this specific example, there would often be a preference for version #1, which is the original version that had used "build":

• 1. and build upon that, but build they have. -- [original]

Version #1 would often be preferred because the second "build" would then match the first "build" which was used in the previous clause, and that would give a rhetoric effect which would often be desirable by the speaker.

Note: A related answer post to this grammar issue is: “Wrote it I did” Is this grammatical?

LONG VERSION

Your example uses complement preposing in the second clause, where the preposed element is a verb phrase (VP). Usually the second clause will involve an auxiliary verb when the preposed element is a VP.

Here are some typical examples. The 2002 CGEL, page 1376:

• [11.i ] I've promised to help them [ and help them I will ].

• [11.ii ] It's odd that Diane should have said that, if [ say it she did ].

The preposed VP in [11.i ] is "help them", and in [11.ii ] it is "say it". Notice that the nucleus of the second clause in both examples end with an auxiliary: "will" for [11.i ], and "did" for [11.ii ].

Here are their corresponding versions that don't have the preposing:

• A.i. I've promised to help them and I will help them.
• A.ii. It's odd that Diane should have said that, if [ she said it ] / [ she did say it ].

But when the auxiliary verb is the perfect "have" and the preposed element is its complement, then both the past-participle form and the plain form of the verb are acceptable.

The 2002 CGEL page 1381:

Inflection with perfect have

A special issue arises when the preposed element is a complement of perfect have. Compare:

[25]

• i. He said he wouldn't tell them, [ but tell/told them he has ].

• ii. He denies he has told them, [ but tell/told them he has ].

Although have normally takes a past participle, it is the plain form of the verb that is preferred in [i ]. The past participle is preferred in [ii ], where it has been used in the preceding clause, but even here the plain form tell is acceptable.

NOTE: The 2002 CGEL is the 2002 reference grammar by Huddleston and Pullum (et al.), The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language.

1. and build upon that, but build they have. -- [original]
2. and build upon that, but built they have.

In general, both versions are acceptable in today's standard English.

But in this specific example, there would often be a preference for version #1, which is the original version that had used "build":

• 1. and build upon that, but build they have. -- [original]

Version #1 would often be preferred because the second "build" would then match the first "build" which was used in the previous clause, and that would give a rhetoric effect which would often be desirable by the speaker.

LONG VERSION

Your example uses complement preposing in the second clause, where the preposed element is a verb phrase (VP). Usually the second clause will involve an auxiliary verb when the preposed element is a VP.

Here are some typical examples. The 2002 CGEL, page 1376:

• [11.i ] I've promised to help them [ and help them I will ].

• [11.ii ] It's odd that Diane should have said that, if [ say it she did ].

The preposed VP in [11.i ] is "help them", and in [11.ii ] it is "say it". Notice that the nucleus of the second clause in both examples end with an auxiliary: "will" for [11.i ], and "did" for [11.ii ].

Here are their corresponding versions that don't have the preposing:

• A.i. I've promised to help them and I will help them.
• A.ii. It's odd that Diane should have said that, if [ she said it ] / [ she did say it ].

But when the auxiliary verb is the perfect "have" and the preposed element is its complement, then both the past-participle form and the plain form of the verb are acceptable.

The 2002 CGEL page 1381:

Inflection with perfect have

A special issue arises when the preposed element is a complement of perfect have. Compare:

[25]

• i. He said he wouldn't tell them, [ but tell/told them he has ].

• ii. He denies he has told them, [ but tell/told them he has ].

Although have normally takes a past participle, it is the plain form of the verb that is preferred in [i ]. The past participle is preferred in [ii ], where it has been used in the preceding clause, but even here the plain form tell is acceptable.

NOTE: The 2002 CGEL is the 2002 reference grammar by Huddleston and Pullum (et al.), The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language.

1. and build upon that, but build they have. -- [original]
2. and build upon that, but built they have.

In general, both versions are acceptable in today's standard English.

But in this specific example, there would often be a preference for version #1, which is the original version that had used "build":

• 1. and build upon that, but build they have. -- [original]

Version #1 would often be preferred because the second "build" would then match the first "build" which was used in the previous clause, and that would give a rhetoric effect which would often be desirable by the speaker.

Note: A related answer post to this grammar issue is: “Wrote it I did” Is this grammatical?

LONG VERSION

Your example uses complement preposing in the second clause, where the preposed element is a verb phrase (VP). Usually the second clause will involve an auxiliary verb when the preposed element is a VP.

Here are some typical examples. The 2002 CGEL, page 1376:

• [11.i ] I've promised to help them [ and help them I will ].

• [11.ii ] It's odd that Diane should have said that, if [ say it she did ].

The preposed VP in [11.i ] is "help them", and in [11.ii ] it is "say it". Notice that the nucleus of the second clause in both examples end with an auxiliary: "will" for [11.i ], and "did" for [11.ii ].

Here are their corresponding versions that don't have the preposing:

• A.i. I've promised to help them and I will help them.
• A.ii. It's odd that Diane should have said that, if [ she said it ] / [ she did say it ].

But when the auxiliary verb is the perfect "have" and the preposed element is its complement, then both the past-participle form and the plain form of the verb are acceptable.

The 2002 CGEL page 1381:

Inflection with perfect have

A special issue arises when the preposed element is a complement of perfect have. Compare:

[25]

• i. He said he wouldn't tell them, [ but tell/told them he has ].

• ii. He denies he has told them, [ but tell/told them he has ].

Although have normally takes a past participle, it is the plain form of the verb that is preferred in [i ]. The past participle is preferred in [ii ], where it has been used in the preceding clause, but even here the plain form tell is acceptable.

NOTE: The 2002 CGEL is the 2002 reference grammar by Huddleston and Pullum (et al.), The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language.