0

As a result, a qualitative polymer prototype was produced having weight of 13 g – ten times lighter than the original.

I found the sentence above on the internet . Would it be correct if I use with instead of having ? And are “having///with” same in the sentence above and the sentence below ?

Seats are produced with///having a weight of 12 kg. Otherwise there may be risk of breakage.

1
  • It's idiomatically "natural" to include the article (a) before weight / size / length / etc. of [some value], regardless of whether you introduce that noun phrase using with or having (both of which are fine here). – FumbleFingers Jan 31 '20 at 13:59
0

No. It's better to use "with a" instead of "having" in the top sentence. "With" on its own is incorrect, according to Grammarly:

An article (a, an, or the) is a type of determiner. Possessive adjectives (my, his, our), possessive nouns (Joe’s, mother’s), and quantifiers (each, every) are also determiners. Single countable nouns usually require a determiner.

Since "weight" is a single countable noun, it's best to put an article in front of it when using "with" or "having".

This often happens when someone is attempting to reduce the number of words in their work. For example, I made this up, which is grammatically incorrect but still understandable:

Grab key. Go to car. Unlock with third button. Open door. Get in car. Close door.

Your second sentence is fine; it doesn't matter if you use "having a" or "with a", though I would recommend "with a" because more people will understand it.

5
  • I think it's a bit of a stretch to recast Grammarly's Single countable nouns usually require a determiner as "With" on its own is incorrect. It's just idiomatically more common to include the article (but becoming less so with "having" over recent decades). – FumbleFingers Jan 31 '20 at 14:14
  • Yes, but this is usually because people are talking in a more concise manner to get their point across simply. It's not grammatically correct, and so shouldn't be stated as such. – Corsaka Jan 31 '20 at 14:16
  • 1
    Well, if you define "grammatical" as meaning "consistent with Latin-based principles as determined by Victorian pedants", I guess that's probably true. But I'd rather define it as "accurately reflecting actual usage", which changes by region and over time. – FumbleFingers Jan 31 '20 at 14:19
  • I'll be happy to edit my answer when the usage of "having" gets closer (on that graph) to the usage of "having a". – Corsaka Jan 31 '20 at 14:21
  • I'm not substantially disagreeing with your answer here - just saying there's effectively a continuum stretching from "ungrammatical / non-idiomatic" through to "idiomatic / natural / grammatical" (within which "grammatical" and "idiomatic" aren't always the same thing, especially not for all speakers in all contexts). – FumbleFingers Jan 31 '20 at 14:29

Your Answer

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