Would you explain what is grammatical point behind this sentence? What does the author want to say? Is it correct to write like this in English? (Thank you in advance.)

In the thirteen century, a number of political achievements cut Europe's overland trade routes to southern and north-eastern Asia, with which Europe had have important profitable ...

  • As J.R. comments below, the original text does not read "had have" but had had. – Tᴚoɯɐuo Apr 15 '16 at 14:18

Not only is it strange, it is ungrammatical to use had have in the sentence.

When the verb "have" is used as an auxiliary verb, it has to be followed by a past participle, not by a bare infinitive. The past participle form of to "have" is had and you have to use had had instead of had have.

If you contrast "I have just had dinner" with "I have just have dinner", it would be easier to understand.

  • 1
    Rathony is right. Unsurprisingly, this correction matches the original. That said, there are a few times where "had have" is grammatical (such as, She better had have left the door unlocked). – J.R. Apr 15 '16 at 8:25
  • 3
    @J.R. are you sure about that example? It doesn't scan for me. She'd better have left the door unlocked and even She better have left the door... both seem OK, but not She better had have left.... – terdon Apr 15 '16 at 9:45
  • 1
    @terndon - I agree that example might be a little "off" (She had better have left the door unlocked is probably a better wording). I was only trying to point out that most English grammar "rules" have a few exceptions every now and then. Garner says it better than I can: "A superfluous have after had is typical of dialect, and it sometimes makes its way into print. Those inclined to make this mistake often collapse the erroneous phrase into the contraction *had've." Perhaps I should have used scare quotes when I said "grammatical" in my earlier comment. – J.R. Apr 15 '16 at 10:46
  • 1
    I have often wondered if we could entirely omit the clumsy 'had had' and just use one had instead. Most sentences still scan just as well with one had as with two. The above sentence could have been re-written as "...with which Europe had important and highly...". What do others say? – tom Apr 15 '16 at 12:05
  • 1
    @tom You might find this ELU question and answers helpful. Since there could be no confusion caused by using just "simple past" had, I don't see any problem using had in place of had had. Using the past perfect tense is not always necessary. – user24743 Apr 15 '16 at 12:26

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.