Hadn't have

[alnxp]

I understand that the following sentence is the past perfect tense.

The plane had taken off.

And I also understand that past perfect is constructed by using the auxiliary verb (had) + past participle (taken).

However, why does the following sentence contain the word have?

If that hadn't have happened they would've had literally no money to pay for gas for a car.

Why isn't it hadn't happened?

 

[Rover_KE]

Including 'have' is incorrect, but you will hear it a lot.

Where did you encounter that sentence?

 

[alnxp]

Including 'have' is incorrect, but you will hear it a lot.

Where did you encounter that sentence?

I heard it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLTWG9nKWZE&feature=youtu.be&t=2220

It's weird because as you can see, it was supposed to be a formal language.

So, is it really that common?

 

[emsr2d2]

It's fairly common. I think some people just assume it follows the pattern of other similar sentences:

You shouldn't have done that. :tick:
I wouldn't have done that. :tick:
If you hadn't have done that ... :cross: but some people think it's right.
If you hadn't done that ... :tick:

You'll also hear "If I'd've done that ..." instead of "I had done that".

And don't get me started on "I wish I had done that" being expressed as "I wish I would have done that" or, more irritatingly, "I wish I would of done that". :shock:

 

[alnxp]

Thank you very much.

How about:

I wish I could have had more time.

Wrong?

 

[emsr2d2]

No, that's OK. However, it doesn't mean exactly the same as "I wish I had had more time".

 

[jutfrank]

If you hadn't have done that ... :cross: but some people think it's right.

Of course, they're very wrong if they think it's right!

 

[Raymott]

And even worse, in my view is "If you wouldn't have done that ..." (where it means "If you hadn't done that ...")

 

[jutfrank]

And even worse, in my view is "If you wouldn't have done that ..." (where it means "If you hadn't done that ...")

Don't get me wrong—I can't stand this either, but at least it's vaguely grammatical when compared to using had have together, which breaks all the rules. But in a way, I'd rather people said had have than would have, if only because I think the former could never catch on enough to be standard, whereas with the latter I worry.

I think that either way, it seems that there's some kind of linguistic force at work here that compels people to include a /d/ sound, whether that be a reduced had or would. Fascinating.