1

Que1-When a subordinate clause employs the perfect participle (having+past participle) can we use present tenses in the main clause(know, has been worrying)?

1) Having lived there, he KNOWS its climate very well.
2) Having broken his leg, he HAS BEEN WORRYING all night.

And Que2-
Can we write present perfect in place of perfect participle?

1) Having broken his leg, he went home. = He HAS BROKEN his leg and he went home.

I've read through some websites about perfect participle but got further confused.Please could you clarify my doubt?

Improve this question
4
  • 1
    Yes to your two questions, but your second example should read "He has broken his leg and gone home".
    – BillJ
    Jul 11, 2017 at 13:12
  • 1
    @BillJ ... I think OP is asking about transforming the participial clause into a finite clause with a time reference which agrees with the main clause: "He had broken his leg and he went home*.
    – StoneyB on hiatus
    Jul 11, 2017 at 13:14
  • 1
    Exactly, I need transformation of the participial clause into a finite clause with a time reference which agrees with the main clause.
    – nandy
    Jul 11, 2017 at 13:27
  • @nandy So why give the example "He HAS BROKEN his leg and he went home"? I thought you were asking if it was okay. Btw, that example is a coordination of two independent clauses -- there is no single main clause.
    – BillJ
    Jul 11, 2017 at 15:40

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

The "having +PP" construction sets the event in the past relative to the main clause, but the verb in the main clause can be present or past. Eg:

Having not eaten all day, I'm very hungry. (= as I haven't eaten all day)

Having not eaten all day, I was very hungry. (= as I hadn't eaten all day)

Improve this answer
4
  • You mean "having+pp" all depends on the main clause whether it is in past or present. If the main clause in present then "having+pp" must in present and if the main clause in past then "having+pp" must in past right?
    – nandy
    Jul 11, 2017 at 13:13
  • Having always paid his taxes, he will get a full State Pension. I think in practice the "having +PP" construction sets the event in the past relative to time of utterance, but I stand ready to be corrrected on that point if need be. I can see problems interpreting, say, Having not eaten all day, he will be hungry (now?, very soon?, by tea-time tomorrow night?).
    – FumbleFingers
    Jul 11, 2017 at 13:18
  • @FumbleFingers I'd say the participial perfect designates a state at Reference Time, arising out of the 'nonevent' during a timespan running up to RT. He will be hungry now establishes a present RT (this is epistemic will) so the participial perfect is understood as He has not eaten all day. Your other two establish future RTs, so the ppl.pf is understood as "He will not have eaten all day".
    – StoneyB on hiatus
    Jul 11, 2017 at 15:36
  • @StoneyB: oic. Yes, it makes more sense to PP designates a state at RT, rather than an explicit reference to some prior activity. Then it's just a matter of identifying the relevant RT from context, rather that focusing on the specific verb tense.
    – FumbleFingers
    Jul 11, 2017 at 16:03

You must log in to answer this question.

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