Had he to be remembered...

[Bushwhacker]

Given the following sentence:

"Had he to be remembered for something, he would be for taking part in the mythical company..."

DO you find correct the use of "had he to be...., he would be for"?

Or do you find more correct expressions like "Should it be remembered..., he would be for

Or maybe "If he had to be remembered... he would be for"

Thank you for your help

[minnieuk]

Given the following sentence:

"Had he to be remembered for something, he would be for taking part in the mythical company..."

DO you find correct the use of "had he to be...., he would be for"?

Or do you find more correct expressions like "Should it be remembered..., he would be for

Or maybe "If he had to be remembered... he would be for"

Thank you for your help

Of the 3 examples you give here, the best one is the third although I would say:
"If he had to be remembered ... it would be for"

I suppose you could say "he would be remembered for" but you can't say "he would be for"

I'm not sure the use of "had to be" is really natural in this case. I think it's more likely you'd hear something like:

"If he's remembered ... it will be for"

It's not quite the same though and depends on what you're trying to say.

[emsr2d2]

Given the following sentence:

"Had he to be remembered for something, he would be for taking part in the mythical company..."

DO you find correct the use of "had he to be...., he would be for"?

Or do you find more correct expressions like "Should it be remembered..., he would be for

Or maybe "If he had to be remembered... he would be for"

Thank you for your help

Had he to be remembered for something, it would be for taking part...

Had he to have been remembered for something, it would have been for taking part...

It's an unusual construction at the beginning (not incorrect) and I would prefer "If he had to be remembered for something, it would be for..."