2

I've read in Longman English Grammar (PDF, page 258) that we use get and get / have+object+past participle in a non-causative way for accidents, disasters, etc. that happen beyond our control.

For example,

Don't join in the argument or you might get your nose punched.

She had her house destroyed in an earthquake.

I think using have in non-causative way is to use the experiential construction (Have+object+past participle usage).

But here in the first sentence get has also been used non-causatively.

Experiential construction shows the experience. So it's called experiential. But in the first sentence, the subject (you) hasn't yet experienced of being punched on his nose. But why is this sentence still in experiential construction?

Next question:

Do we use have and get non-causatively in every situation when something happens to us beyond our control?

Improve this question
3
  • 2
    They are just passive voice. "Don't join in the argument or someone might punch your nose.". "An earthquake destroyed her house."
    – John Feltz
    Nov 17, 2016 at 16:21
  • 2
    I don't know why I'm getting close votes in this question
    – yubraj
    Nov 19, 2016 at 6:38
  • @JohnFeltz: Nah -- the passive-voice equivalents would be "your nose might be [or get] punched" and "her house was destroyed". The constructions in the OP's examples are distinct. (And although the OP's specific examples at least include passive participles -- creating similarity with the passive voice -- the construction doesn't require that; consider "You might get your nose dirty", with the adjective "dirty", and "She had two close friends move away within a few weeks of each other", with the (active) infinitive "move".)
    – ruakh
    Jun 3, 2020 at 22:53

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3

But in the first sentence, the subject (you) hasn't yet experienced of being punched on his nose. But why this sentence is still in Experiential construction ?

Because tense is separate from word choice. A sentence like "You will experience happiness" is perfectly fine, and describes an experience you will (I assume) have, even though it doesn't say whether you've already experienced it.

Do we use have and Get non-causativelx in every situation when something happens to us beyond our control ?

No, not at all. Firstly, there are some other constructions that have the same effect; for example, "My car gave out on me when I was twenty miles outside of town" means the same as "I had my car give out when […]". Secondly, we don't usually bother to indicate the experiencer explicitly; for example, we might just say "Her house was destroyed in an earthquake" and let people infer that this had an effect on her. (Sometimes this results in ambiguity; something like "Michael dropped it on the floor" doesn't specify whether he intentionally dropped it (Michael = agent), vs. whether it fell from his grasp (Michael = experiencer). In many cases it's clear from context; in other cases, it can be better to reword.)

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .