[Grammar] perfect participle I / participle II

[tyrp]

Hello! I'm bothered with the participle and its forms. Can we use participle I perfect as well as participle II in the following sentence:
The puppies having been shown / shown to me yesterday look cute.
I like the 2nd variant much better, but is the 1st one definitely wrong? Will there be any difference? We were taught perfect participles stress priority (intensifying the meaning of priority) or cause, but there's neither here. Can we never use perfect participles as attributes?
Thanks a million for your advice!

 

[Raymott]

"The puppies having been shown to me yesterday look cute" is not a possible sentence. The other one is. You should probably use "looked".
I'm not sure what you mean by the 'priority' or 'intensifying' statement.
I can't think of a possibility for a perfect participle like "having been shown" being used as an adjective. Note that that is the passive voice. The active perfect participle is "having shown". That's not an adjective either.

PS: "The puppies, having been shown to me yesterday, all dropped dead overnight" is a proper sentence. But the 'having' phrase doesn't have an adjectival property. It doesn't mean, "The puppies which were shown to me yesterday ..."

 

[tyrp]

Thank you very much for your answer, dear Raymott, you've been of great help to me more than once, and are always ready to help. However, I still can't get it, unfortunately.

" "The puppies, having been shown to me yesterday, all dropped dead overnight" is a proper sentence. But the 'having' phrase doesn't have an adjectival property. It doesn't mean, "The puppies which were shown to me yesterday ..."

What does this sentence mean if not "The puppies, which were shown to me yesterday, all dropped dead overnight"?
What is the difference in the structures of your and my sentences??? Shall I just add commas?
I agree with "looked" being better, though I meant the fact with "having been shown" as additional info about the puppies that I find cute in general (they are living, I'm sure they were cute and are so now.)

PS By 'intensifying priority' I meant the difference like that in the following examples:
Having carefully closed the door, Margaret listened to the sounds in the ground floor (the action of the participle is definitely finished and there's a time-gap between it and that expressed by the verb-predicate, the priority and fulfilment of the action are stressed and intensified.)
Closing the door, Margaret picked up her bag and went running down the street (the action is regarded as finished, but short, there's no large time-gap between Margaret's closing the door and picking up her bag. The actions follow each other very closely.)

Thanks again and I really hope for your making the situation clear for me.

 

[Raymott]

What does this sentence mean if not "The puppies, which were shown to me yesterday, all dropped dead overnight"?
1. "The puppies, which were shown to me yesterday, all dropped dead overnight"?
2. "The puppies, having been shown to me yesterday, all dropped dead overnight" is not the same. The connotations are different. For example, in sentence 2, the puppies might have dropped dead because I looked at them. There is an implication that my having been shown them has some connection with their dropping dead. That is not implied in sentence 1, so they don't mean the same.
What is the difference in the structures of your and my sentences??? Shall I just add commas?

Mine uses a non-restrictive relative clause and yours uses a perfect participle phrase. That's the structural difference.
Adding commas to your sentence (as in 2) does make it make sense. But it doesn't make it mean the same as 1.
"Having been shown to me yesterday, the puppies look[ed] cute" doesn't express a sensible concept, because showing you the puppies can't make them look cute. It's not a simple information-adding structure.
Here's another example that also makes no sense as a sentence: 3. "My father, having turned 80 yesterday, used to be a fireman."
And here's one that does make sence: 4. "My father, who turned 80 yesterday, used to be a fireman."
3. is trying to assert some connection between the clauses where there is none. 4. does not try to assert a connection.

 

[tyrp]

Oh, thank you so much, dear Raymott. Now I see the difference and understand it well. I'm really grateful for such a comprehensive and brilliant explanation. Thanks again!