[Grammar] having + participle

[FONT=&quot]Dear Sir/ Madam
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"Traditionally, the event relied on Hakka residents' donations, but with many having moved from Tai Hang, organisers had to rely on funding from elsewhere."[/FONT]


Could anyone tell me the grammatical role of the participle "having" in the clause, is it a participle adjective or an auxiliary verb? Can it be replaced by "have" ?

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

KSSEEJ said:

[FONT=&quot]Dear Sir/ Madam
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"Traditionally, the event relied on Hakka residents' donations, but with many having moved from Tai Hang, organisers had to rely on funding from elsewhere."[/FONT]


Could anyone tell me the grammatical role of the participle "having" in the clause, is it a participle adjective or an auxiliary verb? Can it be replaced by "have" ?

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Click to expand...

many having moved from Tai Hang = gerund clause, prepositional object of "with"
having = perfect aspect auxiliary

Can it be replaced by "have"

Click to expand...

Negative.

I do't think we have a gerund here,

'Many having moved' is a partciple clause (present perfect). 'With' here acts as a conjunction, in my opinion.

'With many having moved' - 'Because/as/since many had to move'

fivejedjon said:

I do't think we have a gerund here,

'Many having moved' is a partciple clause (present perfect). 'With' here acts as a conjunction, in my opinion.

'With many having moved' - 'Because/as/since many had to move'

Click to expand...

"but is already a "conjunction". "with is a prep.

fivejedjon said:

'With many having moved' - 'Because/as/since many had to move'

Click to expand...

dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/with_6

preposition
With all the excitement and confusion, I forgot to say goodbye to her.

Click to expand...

ambarde said:

"but" is already a "conjunction". "with" is a prep.

Click to expand...

You seem to suggest that it is not possible to have two conjunctions in succession. You can: I don't dislike him because he smokes, but because he smokes a smelly pipe.

I agree that "with" almost always functions as a preposition. I am suggesting that it may be functioning as a conjunction in this example.

fivejedjon said:

You seem to suggest that it is not possible to have two conjunctions in succession. You can: I don't dislike him because he smokes, but because he smokes a smelly pipe.

I agree that "with" almost always functions as a conjunction. I am suggesting that it may be functioning as a conjunction in this example.

Click to expand...

My message indeed suggests that, although what you say is not what I meant. Sorry. I should have been more pprecise and specific.
Adverbials can be realized by different syntactical forms, eg., prepositional phrases, nonfinite clauses, etc. I think you already know that. "with" is clearly a preposition, and, given your status, I am stunned that you fail to realize that.

I am suggesting that it may be functioning as a conjunction in this example.

Click to expand...

It may not! ;-)

When it comes to the nebulous class of adverbials, deductions made relying on meaning can play funny tricks on the unsuspecting victim.

ambarde said:

I think you already know that. "with" is clearly a preposition.

Click to expand...

I wrote in a previous post, "I agree that "with" almost always functions as a conjunction".

In [FONT=&quot]"Many havingmoved from Tai Hang, organisers had to rely on funding from elsewhere"[/FONT], most would consider the underlined words to be a participle phrase; it functions as an absolute clause.

Putting 'with' in front of it complicates matters.

The words can be taken as the equivalent of "With the departure of many from Tai Hang", or of "As/since/because many had moved from Tail Hang". I agree that we cannot rely on meaning when analysing the function of words, but I don't think we can rely on parts of speech found in dictionaries, either. I am not very happy with my suggestion that 'with' may be functioning as a conjunction. Equally, I am not happy with the 'preposition + gerund' reading. Let's see what others have to say.

ambarde said:

deductions made relying on meaning

Click to expand...

The primary purpose of language is to generate meaning, so meaning is not a second class citizen to grammar.

KSSEEJ said:

[FONT=&quot]Dear Sir/ Madam[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"Traditionally, the event relied on Hakka residents' donations, but with many having moved from Tai Hang, organisers had to rely on funding from elsewhere."[/FONT]


Could anyone tell me the grammatical role of the participle "having" in the clause, is it a participle adjective or an auxiliary verb? Can it be replaced by "have" ?

Click to expand...

ONLY A NON-TEACHER'S OPINION


(1) Would it be easier to parse if we rearranged the sentence something like:

The event relied on Hakka residents' donations, but organizers had to rely on

funding from elsewhere, with many [residents] having moved from Tai Hang.

(2) For ordinary learners like me, it appears:

(a) It is an absolute clause (as Teacher Fivejedjon said).

(b) If it is, then the -ing word by definition is a "participle."

(c) Some strict grammarians might point out that the "with is not necessary":

The teacher being absent, we went home.

With the teacher being absent, we went home.