Does "to have + someone + Past Participle" have an ambiguity?
You must have me confused with someone else.
When I saw this sentence for the first time, I was confused because only thing I knew about that kind of structure was a causative verb structure. But I found out that that means not only "You must be mistaking me for other person", but also is completely grammatical.
So, my guess is that the said structure has two possible meanings depending on the contexts.
- He had her confused with someone else.
This means simply the same thing with the example above. "He mistook her for someone else".
- He had her confused and ran away.
This means "She got confused and failed to catch him".
Am I right? If not, please correct me.
PS: By the way, are both of those two 'have' in No.1 and No.2 the Resultative Have?