passive causitives

[blacknomi]

She ____ her car stolen last week.
(1) had
(2) got
(3) Either could be used here.


Answer: (1)


As far as I know,
had/got + object + past participle carries passvie meaning. They are passive causitives. I chose (3) here. But it's wrong. Could you help explain?

 

[Francois]

to suffer something that someone does to you:
She had her car stolen (= it was stolen) last week

This only one of the many use of 'have', of course.

For 'get':

to do something to something or someone unintentionally or accidentally:
He got his bag caught in the train doors as they were closing.
I always get the two youngest sisters' names confused.

(Again, there are other meanings).
Here, the subject is playing an active role in the action (its his fault if the bag got caught, and if he mixes up the kids' names).

However, I presume you didn't play an active role in your car robbery.

FRC

 

[blacknomi]

to suffer something that someone does to you:
She had her car stolen (= it was stolen) last week

This only one of the many use of 'have', of course.

FRC

1.I _____ my hair cut last week.
(1)had
(2)got
(3)Either could be used here.


2.I ____ everything done.
(1)had
(2)got
(3)Either could be used here.

3.I'm going to _____ the spare bedroom decorated.
(1)have
(2)get
(3)Either could be used here.



I had my hair cut (by someone) last week. OK
I got my hair cut (by someone) last week. OK
She had her car stolen (= it was stolen by someone) last week. OK
She got her car stolen (= it was stolen by someone) last week. :?:
I had everything done(by me). OK
I got everything done(by me). OK
I'm going to have the spare bedroom decorated(by me). OK
I'm going to get the spare bedroom decorated(by me). OK


I think had/got are used in such cases to convey something was done by someone just like whay you said. So logically speaking, it should be OK to say 'She got her car stolen last week". Isn't it?

:roll:

 

[Francois]

You can use either one or the other (had/go) when you played an active role in the "causative clause". If you got your hair cut, I suppose you went to the hairdresser' or called in someone to cut your hair. This was no accident. You could have had your hair cut, too.
However, if you didn't play any role, that is, it's an accident that has nothing to do with you (apart from the consequences), then you must use 'had'. Using 'got' would imply that you took part in the action, so to speak.

FRC

 

[blacknomi]

RE:

• I had my watch stolen. OK
  I got my watch stolen. Not OK

I see. 'had' is the only one because your watch was stolen by someone and it was gone. You didn't participate in the action. Your watch being stolen was out of an unexpected accident rather than someone's willingness.

Am I right?

 

[Francois]

unexpected accident rather than someone's willingness.

Well, the guy who stole your watch certainly did it on purpose, but as far as you're concerned it's an "accident". You didn't contribute to your watch being stolen. So, according to the dictionary, 'got' doesn't fit and 'had' is the only choice.
Now, maybe usage doesn't frown on 'got' in this case -- the native speakers will tell.

FRC

 

[MikeNewYork]

RE:

• I had my watch stolen. OK
  I got my watch stolen. Not OK

I see. 'had' is the only one because your watch was stolen by someone and it was gone. You didn't participate in the action. Your watch being stolen was out of an unexpected accident rather than someone's willingness.

Am I right?

I would not use either "had" or "got" for something that happened to you without your participation. You will hear it, but it could be confusing. "I had my watch stolen" can imply that it was you who set it up -- perhaps for the insurance money.

"My watch was stolen" is a far better structure. :wink:

 

[blacknomi]

RE:

• I had my watch stolen. OK
  I got my watch stolen. Not OK

I see. 'had' is the only one because your watch was stolen by someone and it was gone. You didn't participate in the action. Your watch being stolen was out of an unexpected accident rather than someone's willingness.

Am I right?

I would not use either "had" or "got" for something that happened to you without your participation. You will hear it, but it could be confusing. "I had my watch stolen" can imply that it was you who set it up -- perhaps for the insurance money.

"My watch was stolen" is a far better structure. :wink:

Good point there.
It is the grammar test to blame. 8)

 

[MikeNewYork]

RE:

• I had my watch stolen. OK
  I got my watch stolen. Not OK

I see. 'had' is the only one because your watch was stolen by someone and it was gone. You didn't participate in the action. Your watch being stolen was out of an unexpected accident rather than someone's willingness.

Am I right?

I would not use either "had" or "got" for something that happened to you without your participation. You will hear it, but it could be confusing. "I had my watch stolen" can imply that it was you who set it up -- perhaps for the insurance money.

"My watch was stolen" is a far better structure. :wink:

Good point there.
It is the grammar test to blame. 8)

Darned test! :wink:

 

[blacknomi]

LOL!

Ich bin schlaftrunken. Auf Wiedersehen.

 

[MikeNewYork]

LOL!

Ich schlafe soon. Auf Wiedersien there.

Have a good schlafen. :roll:

 

[blacknomi]

I have my hair cut.
==> My hair was cut (by someone.)
I have the film develpoed.
==> The film was developed (by someone.)

This sounds weird to me.
I have my ice cream added on some toppings.
==>Some toppings are added on my ice cream (by someone.)

How do you explain this?

 

[Francois]

You got it backwards
I have toppings added on my ice cream.

FRC

 

[Tdol]

Blacknomi, if it sounds weird to you, then try thinking of the causative as a passive itself.;-)

 

[blacknomi]

You got it backwards
I have toppings added on my ice cream.

FRC

Ah......soga. What an idiot. :wink: