0

Here is the scenario... suppose that Tim made me wash his car and he promised me to pay for that but after I washed his car he didn’t pay me. So I want to say it in complex sentence using having.....

1...Having his car washed, Tim didn’t pay me.

2...I having washed his car, Tim didn’t pay me.

3... having got his car washed, Tim didn’t pay me.

4.. having me wash his car, Tim didn’t pay me..

Are any of these sentences incorrect????

  • 1 and 4 do not convey your desired meaning. 2 does most clearly but is formal. 3 does, more or less, and is conversational. – Tᴚoɯɐuo Apr 17 '18 at 22:34
  • Thanks for that. Can you please tell me if all the sentences are grammatically correct or any of these are invalid sentences... – Joel Vermish Apr 17 '18 at 22:39
1

2 and 3 are grammatical. having is an auxiliary verb in those sentences, forming the perfect. Their participial clauses thus express a completed action which makes sense when yoked to the particular negated discrete past event (didn't pay).

In 1 and 4, having is a lexical not an auxiliary verb and it has quasi-causative meaning. No completed action is involved; the participial clauses in 2 and 4 express ongoing action. An ongoing action doesn't make much sense when yoked to the particular negated discrete past event (didn't pay).

Having me hold the door open, Tim entered the room carrying the large box.

Having me hold the door open, Tim didn't enter the room carrying the large box. NO

But if we establish a completed action, then it is OK:

Having had me hold the door open, Tim didn't enter the room carrying the large box.

| improve this answer | |
0

Your third example is grammatical but clumsy, the other three are wrong. (3) would read better if you substituted had for got.

Having had his car washed, Tim didn't pay me.

This implies both that you washed the car and that Tim had agreed to pay you but doesn't make it clear. To make it clear, you might write:

Having had his car washed by me, Tim didn't pay me as he had agreed.

That's a bit of a mouthful and would be better written as:

Tim failed to pay me for washing his car as he had agreed.

(although both those examples are slightly ambiguous and the second example loses the participle introduction!)

The rule when you introduce a sentence with a participle is to follow it with the correct subject. Failure to do so leads to confusing sentences like these:

Having robbed the shop, the policeman arrested the thief.

So reconsidering your other sentences:

(1) is wrong because Tim didn't wash the car, you did.

(2) is wrong because when you say: *I having washed his car, * you have to continue the sentence with what you did, not what Tim did.

(4) is wrong because the phrase having me wash his car has to act as the subject of a sentence, as in: Having me wash his car was Tim's birthday wish

| improve this answer | |
  • One of the sentences which you call wrong, #2, has a participial clause structure which has been around since the 17th century but is on the wane. It appears now mostly in formal contexts (law, academic, literary). Compare: Hereon Grypus laid siege to Antioch, and he having taken the place, Tryphaena the wife of Grypus earnestly desired to have Cleopatra delivered into her hands... [books.google.com/… – Tᴚoɯɐuo Apr 18 '18 at 11:35
  • @Tᴚoɯɐuo I bow to your classical knowledge although I'd discourage any pupils from practising it on less well-educated masters. – Ronald Sole Apr 18 '18 at 15:57
  • It's not classical knowledge: He seemed to have a wholesome fear of coming within gunshot of the deceived girl's father. He also said the woman who is passing in Arkansas for his wife is a bigamist, she having had a living and un-divorced husband at the time of her marriage. books.google.com/… – Tᴚoɯɐuo Apr 18 '18 at 16:30
  • What is meant by passing “he also said the women who is passing in Arkansas” is it living? – Joel Vermish Apr 18 '18 at 18:21
  • Paraphrase: he also said that the woman who is presenting herself as his wife in Arkansas (and is being believed) is a bigamist... or letting on as though she were his wife.... To pass there means to put forward as true, or to try to fool people into thinking that one is legitimate. An impostor passes himself as the real thing. – Tᴚoɯɐuo Apr 18 '18 at 19:05

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.