have / having champagne brought to our room

[Verona_82]

Hello,

I wonder if this is a good test question:

John, why don’t you come and celebrate with us? We are having / have champagne brought up to our room specially.

Is it possible to see the second sentence as "we have champagne [which has been/was] brought to our room", 'brought' being a participle rather than part of the causative construction?

Thank you!

 

[bhaisahab]

Hello,

I wonder if this is a good test question:

John, why don’t you come and celebrate with us? We are having / have champagne brought up to our room specially.

Is it possible to see the second sentence as "we have champagne [which has been/was] brought to our room", 'brought' being a participle rather than part of the causative construction?

Thank you!

Only "are having" is correct.

 

[Verona_82]

Thanks. Could you please tell me why we can't see 'brought' as a participle?

 

[bhaisahab]

Thanks. Could you please tell me why we can't see 'brought' as a participle?

You could say "we are having champagne brought", we have had champagne brought", "champagne was brought". If your question is constructed appropriately. With this "John, why don’t you come and celebrate with us? We are having / have champagne brought up to our room specially." only "we are having" is possible.

 

[BobK]

You just can't [this was, you'll have guessed. a response to the OP] here. In the context of the 'having', the sentence is understood as causative.

You could make 'brought' a participle by breaking the tie between have and brought:

John, why don’t you come and celebrate with us? We have champagne; it was brought up to our room specially.

b

 

[Verona_82]

I see. But why do I have to break the tie? What about

-You told me you're interested in art. Why don't you come round tonight? I have a picture [which was] painted by some famous artist - forgot his name.

 

[5jj]

You: We have champagne brought to our room every day.

That works, but it's causative HAVE again, as in the original 'we are having champagne brought specially'.

 

[Barb_D]

I have a picture [which was] painted by some famous artist - forgot his name.

That "have" is the have of possession, not causation.

 

[BobK]

:up: It's all a question of context. 'Have', followed immediately by 'painted by...' is possessive (though in 'I have painted tha kitchen' it's not) . In this case, the expectations of the hearer work the other way. If you want to make it causative you can say 'I'm having a copy of a Modigliani painted by an artist friend of mine.'

b

 

[5jj]

That "have" is the have of possession, not causation.

This would suggest that it's possible to interpret HAVE in this way in Verona's We have champagne brought up to our room specially.

I think it is possible.

 

[Barb_D]

Sorry, I should have quoted the post I was referring to - I mean the one about the painting.

 

[Verona_82]

That "have" is the have of possession, not causation.

:up: It's all a question of context. 'Have', followed immediately by 'painted by...' is possessive .

That's the point I was (so desperately) trying to make! You seem to approve the possessive usage of 'have' in the painting example, but say it's totally out of the question in the champagne one. Both look pretty much the same to me.

 

[bhaisahab]

This would suggest that it's possible to interpret HAVE in this way in Verona's We have champagne brought up to our room specially.

I think it is possible.

I think it would need a comma after "champagne" to make it possible.

 

[BobK]

:up: - I said 'break the tie', which I did with words. You could do it with punctuation; in speech, you could do it with a pause.

b