Have had
- Thread starter jack
- Start date
- Status
jack said:
Sentence number two is not correct.
1. You guys should have had this guy killed. - This means it was advisable for "you guys" to hire someone to kill "this guy", but "you guys" didn't for some reason. It could also mean that it was a good idea - advisable - for you guys to ask someone to kill "this guy". It doesn't have to mean that "you guys" had to hire someone. "You guys" could have asked someone from within the "organization" to kill "this guy". Someone from within the "organization" would already be on the payroll, so "you guys" wouldn't have had to hire someone to kill "this guy".
3. You guys should have killed him. - This means that it was advisable, or a good idea, for "you guys" to kill "him", but for some reason "you guys" didn't do it.
2. You guys should have had killed him. - This is not correct.
to have "someone" do something - Here, "have" is being used as a causative verb. It is used with the past modal form "should have + past participle". In this case the past participle is "had", which is also the verb. The object pronoun "him" should follow "had".
should have had him killed
Here's another example so that you can compare.
Your car is going to cost more money to fix now. You should have had it checked out as soon as you thought something was wrong.
You should have had it checked out. - correct
You should have had checked it out. - not correct
Here, the object pronoun also has to follow the causative verb "had", which is a past participle following "should have" - should have had it checked out
jack said:
In other words,
1. My skin is dry, as opposed to moist.
2. My skin has been dried by a process. :shock:
Note that, for example, meat is dried, giving dried meat. The skin of an animal can be dried, too, giving dried skin (i.e., a dried pelt), but human skin is 'dry'; if dried (i.e., dried out of its moisture) it means, the skin is no longer living). :wink:
All the best, 8)
1. I have never had make-up since. (present perfect)
2. I had never had make-up since. (past perfect)
3. I had never have make-up since.
4. I have never have make-up since.
Note, make up is a verb; make-up is a noun. :wink:
All the best,
(present perfect)2. I had never had make-up since.
(past perfect)3. I had never have make-up since.
4. I have never have make-up since.
Note, make up is a verb; make-up is a noun. :wink:
All the best,
jack said:
I'm not sure I understand what you are asking. Sorry.
In 1., 'never', a frequency adverb, is not compatible with 'kill him', a telic verb (i.e., it happens once; he dies once), unless that is we're talking about animate beings that never die or have more than one life, as in a video game. So, 1. is grammatical if we're talking about a video game, and it's not grammatical if we are talking about a human being.
In 2., 'make-up' functions as a noun. If we replaced it with a verb, the result is ungrammatical,
EX: I have never had make up before. (Not OK)
The above sentence is ungrammatical for two reasons: 1) 'had' is a transitive verb, which means it needs an object. 'make up' is not an object (i.e. a nominal: noun, adjective, preposition); It's a verb. 2) There are two verbs in the sentence: 'have...had' and 'make up'. A sentence has one verb only. In order to make the sentence grammatical, we have to omit one of the verbs and we have to add an object. We can do that by changing the verb 'make up' to its nominal form 'make-up'. That hyphen (-) sure is important.
All the best,
So I can't use these ones? Why not?
1. For the last two days, I had six hours of sleep.
2. For the last two days, I have six hours of sleep?
Are these correct? If so, what do they mean?
3. I never had this problem before.
4. I never have this problem before.
1. For the last two days, I had six hours of sleep.
2. For the last two days, I have six hours of sleep?
Are these correct? If so, what do they mean?
3. I never had this problem before.
4. I never have this problem before.
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2002
- Member Type
- Native Language
- British English
- Home Country
- UK
- Current Location
- Japan
1&2- the tense are wrong- 'the last two days' is a period of time beginning in the past and continuing to now, so that past tense doesn't work becaus eitdoesn't continue to now and the present doesn't work because it doesn't go back into the past.
3 isOK, though I would use the presentperfect. This usage is, I believe, more common in American Enlgish. 4 Doesn't work. ;-)
3 isOK, though I would use the presentperfect. This usage is, I believe, more common in American Enlgish. 4 Doesn't work. ;-)
Thanks.
Are these correct?
1. The tense are wrong. (Is this correct? Why isn't 'tense' plural?)
2. The tense is wrong. (Correct? How do you know if 'tense' is singular or plural?)
What do these mean?
3. You need to watch what you have said.
4. You need to watch what you had said.
5. You need to watch what you say.
6. You need to watch what you said.
Are these correct?
1. The tense are wrong. (Is this correct? Why isn't 'tense' plural?)
2. The tense is wrong. (Correct? How do you know if 'tense' is singular or plural?)
What do these mean?
3. You need to watch what you have said.
4. You need to watch what you had said.
5. You need to watch what you say.
6. You need to watch what you said.
- Status