Maybe some of you grammar whizzes out there can help me confirm or correct my grammar logic here. I’m think that when constructing a relative clause using the participle “having” that only non-defining relative clauses will work. For example:
Q: Who won the case?
A: The lawyer having little experience won the case. (defining) I feel like this sentence does not work using “having little experience” defining who the lawyer is, in which case, “The lawyer with little experience…” or “The lawyer who has little experience won the case,” would be more suiting answers.
Now, I think that the non-defining clause works fine.
Q: What did the lawyer do?
A: The lawyer, with little experience, won the case.
Can anyone back me up on this? Or anything to add?
Thanks.
EDIT: I meant to say in the second one. The Lawyer, ‘having’…not ‘with’
“The lawyer, having little experience, won the case”
But it doesn’t make sense. The meaning is “The lawyer won the case because he had little experience”. You might, of course, say “The lawyer, having little experience, lost the case”.
Likewise:
“The lawyer, having failed to pass his bar exam, was practicing illegally”.
or:
“Bismarck, having an infeasibly large battleship, found the Taiwanese condoms uncomfortable”.
They can all be rephrased using ‘because’.
Your first observation is correct: the (intended) meaning is better conveyed with a straightforward “the lawyer with little experience won the case”. But Taiwanese teachers love to use the most complicated possible vocabulary/grammar, since it’s “better” English
As to your latter example Naughtius, we wouldn’t say “having” there for the same reason we wouldn’t say “My friend is having black hair.” (That is, have is a stative verb.) An obvious better choice would be “with.”
Technically, these clauses starting with “having” are participle clauses and not relative clauses. In the defining case, the implication is “The lawyer who is having little experience…” and so it doesn’t work. As for “The lawyer, having little experience, lost the case” (which like Finley I think is more logical,) seems to be a different case, describing a state in effect at the time of the action of the main verb. “Seeing the mosquito, I decided to hit it.” “Tom, being the bastard that he is, smacked her in the face.” I looked a bit but couldn’t find a specific definition of this usage. There’s also a perfect sense as Finley mentioned “Having failed the test, I…”
It sounds weird because ‘having little experience’ could also be causative so ‘with’ would be a better option. On the other hand, ‘The one having black hair,’ makes me think he’s hungry for a hair sandwich. The problem being that have is both a stative verb and an active verb. In the first case it is obvious that the meaning is stative but in that case above it is less clear. That’s my two bobs worth.
[quote=“Naughtius”] I’m think that when constructing a relative clause using the participle “having” that only non-defining relative clauses will work. For example:
Q: Who won the case?
A: The lawyer having little experience won the case. (defining) I feel like this sentence does not work using “having little experience” defining who the lawyer is, in which case, “The lawyer with little experience…” or “The lawyer who has little experience won the case,” would be more suiting answers.[/quote]The lawyer, having little experience, lost the case. This is fine, but “having little experience” is not a defining relative clause here. It is the reason. Examples where which lawyer you mean is being defined: The lawyer with black hair won the case. The lawyer who has black hair won the case. The lawyer with little experience won the case. The lawyer who had little experience won the case. In all of these you have several lawyers, and you are explaining which one you mean.
If you are defining something or someone, and are talking about a quality they ‘have’, don’t use ‘having’, because here ‘have’ is a stative verb. You can use ‘having’ if it is a synonym for ‘eating’ or ‘drinking’, because here it is an active verb: examples: The lawyer having the tuna sandwich is my friend. This implies there are several lawyers around, and you are specifying that the one who is eating the tuna sandwich is the one that is your friend.
You’re also mixing up two different functions for “have”, in one case, it means “possess”, while in the other, it’s an auxiliary verb combined with another verb to form a perfect tense.
Apples and oranges.
The first case is generally OK, if unwieldy, since it can almost always be replaced with the much easier “with”.
“The lawyer having the weakest case lost.” (HAVE is the verb)
“The lawyer with the weakest case lost”
The second case sounds right because it is right.
The compound is employed to indicate, as has been said, that the prior condition contributed to the current condition. (see what I did there?)
“The young lawyer, having failed to prepare his case carefully, lost.” (HAVE is the auxiliary, FAIL is the verb)
The hair example is always going to sound kind of weird because it’s not really germane to the point.
[quote=“the chief”]You’re also mixing up two different functions for “have”, in one case, it means “possess”, while in the other, it’s an auxiliary verb combined with another verb to form a perfect tense.
Apples and oranges.
The first case is generally OK, if unwieldy, since it can almost always be replaced with the much easier “with”.
“The lawyer having the weakest case lost.” (HAVE is the verb)
“The lawyer with the weakest case lost”
The second case sounds right because it is right.
The compound is employed to indicate, as has been said, that the prior condition contributed to the current condition. (see what I did there?)
“The young lawyer, having failed to prepare his case carefully, lost.” (HAVE is the auxiliary, FAIL is the verb)
The hair example is always going to sound kind of weird because it’s not really germane to the point.[/quote]
I’m not sure about all that Chief. The example given in the OP isn’t using have as an auxiliary though you are. The OP made this sentence:
‘The lawyer having little experience won the case.’ Where ‘having little experience’ is a defining relative clause. In this case ‘have’ is a stative verb. The lawyer has little experience. It isn’t an auxiliary. The Lawyer who has little experience won the case. They take away ‘who has’ and reduce it to ‘having’ which is a perfectly OK thing to do except in this case it could be interpreted as the cause of why he won the case and that makes little sense. It is syntactically OK because there is no comma after lawyer so it is defining but it is semantically confusing and, therefore, grammatically incorrect.
[quote=“Fox”][quote=“the chief”]You’re also mixing up two different functions for “have”, in one case, it means “possess”, while in the other, it’s an auxiliary verb combined with another verb to form a perfect tense.
Apples and oranges.
The first case is generally OK, if unwieldy, since it can almost always be replaced with the much easier “with”.
“The lawyer having the weakest case lost.” (HAVE is the verb)
“The lawyer with the weakest case lost”
The second case sounds right because it is right.
The compound is employed to indicate, as has been said, that the prior condition contributed to the current condition. (see what I did there?)
“The young lawyer, having failed to prepare his case carefully, lost.” (HAVE is the auxiliary, FAIL is the verb)
The hair example is always going to sound kind of weird because it’s not really germane to the point.[/quote]
I’m not sure about all that Chief. The example given in the OP isn’t using have as an auxiliary though you are. The OP made this sentence:
‘The lawyer having little experience won the case.’ Where ‘having little experience’ is a defining relative clause. In this case ‘have’ is a stative verb. The lawyer has little experience. It isn’t an auxiliary. The Lawyer who has little experience won the case. They take away ‘who has’ and reduce it to ‘having’ which is a perfectly OK thing to do except in this case it could be interpreted as the cause of why he won the case and that makes little sense. It is syntactically OK because there is no comma after lawyer so it is defining but it is semantically confusing and, therefore, grammatically incorrect.[/quote]
D-uh, which part of
and
is giving you trouble here, convict?
Of course, “having little experience” uses HAVE as the verb, just like I said.
The second example comes from here:
[quote=“the chief”][quote=“Fox”][quote=“the chief”]You’re also mixing up two different functions for “have”, in one case, it means “possess”, while in the other, it’s an auxiliary verb combined with another verb to form a perfect tense.
Apples and oranges.
The first case is generally OK, if unwieldy, since it can almost always be replaced with the much easier “with”.
“The lawyer having the weakest case lost.” (HAVE is the verb)
“The lawyer with the weakest case lost”
The second case sounds right because it is right.
The compound is employed to indicate, as has been said, that the prior condition contributed to the current condition. (see what I did there?)
“The young lawyer, having failed to prepare his case carefully, lost.” (HAVE is the auxiliary, FAIL is the verb)
The hair example is always going to sound kind of weird because it’s not really germane to the point.[/quote]
I’m not sure about all that Chief. The example given in the OP isn’t using have as an auxiliary though you are. The OP made this sentence:
‘The lawyer having little experience won the case.’ Where ‘having little experience’ is a defining relative clause. In this case ‘have’ is a stative verb. The lawyer has little experience. It isn’t an auxiliary. The Lawyer who has little experience won the case. They take away ‘who has’ and reduce it to ‘having’ which is a perfectly OK thing to do except in this case it could be interpreted as the cause of why he won the case and that makes little sense. It is syntactically OK because there is no comma after lawyer so it is defining but it is semantically confusing and, therefore, grammatically incorrect.[/quote]
D-uh, which part of
and
is giving you trouble here, convict?
Of course, “having little experience” uses HAVE as the verb, just like I said.
The second example comes from here:
In which the two uses are erroneously equated.
:loco:[/quote]
I’m not saying you are wrong in your own mind, I’m saying you are not addressing the Op’s question. You don’t need a battleship to find those condoms uncomfortable, even my little zodiac pushes the envelope.
“The lawyer having the weakest case lost.” (HAVE is the verb) – The verb is ‘lost’ my learned friend.
[quote=“Fox”][quote=“the chief”][quote=“Fox”][quote=“the chief”]You’re also mixing up two different functions for “have”, in one case, it means “possess”, while in the other, it’s an auxiliary verb combined with another verb to form a perfect tense.
Apples and oranges.
The first case is generally OK, if unwieldy, since it can almost always be replaced with the much easier “with”.
“The lawyer having the weakest case lost.” (HAVE is the verb)
“The lawyer with the weakest case lost”
The second case sounds right because it is right.
The compound is employed to indicate, as has been said, that the prior condition contributed to the current condition. (see what I did there?)
“The young lawyer, having failed to prepare his case carefully, lost.” (HAVE is the auxiliary, FAIL is the verb)
The hair example is always going to sound kind of weird because it’s not really germane to the point.[/quote]
I’m not sure about all that Chief. The example given in the OP isn’t using have as an auxiliary though you are. The OP made this sentence:
‘The lawyer having little experience won the case.’ Where ‘having little experience’ is a defining relative clause. In this case ‘have’ is a stative verb. The lawyer has little experience. It isn’t an auxiliary. The Lawyer who has little experience won the case. They take away ‘who has’ and reduce it to ‘having’ which is a perfectly OK thing to do except in this case it could be interpreted as the cause of why he won the case and that makes little sense. It is syntactically OK because there is no comma after lawyer so it is defining but it is semantically confusing and, therefore, grammatically incorrect.[/quote]
D-uh, which part of
and
is giving you trouble here, convict?
Of course, “having little experience” uses HAVE as the verb, just like I said.
The second example comes from here:
In which the two uses are erroneously equated.
:loco:[/quote]
I’m not saying you are wrong in your own mind, I’m saying you are not addressing the Op’s question. You don’t need a battleship to find those condoms uncomfortable, even my little zodiac pushes the envelope.
“The lawyer having the weakest case lost.” (HAVE is the verb) – The verb is ‘lost’ my learned friend.[/quote]
Oh lordy.
Yes, son, the main verb is LOSE.
The verb in the dependent clause “having the weakest case” is HAVE.
There are no auxiliary verbs, since the sentence is in simple past tense.
OK?
Now go help your mother with the chickens.
[quote=“Naughtius”]Basically, I’m trying to find a solid answer of why this would be completely incorrect.
Q: Who is your friend?
A: The one having black hair.
:s[/quote]
In relative clauses that contain a form of the auxiliary verb “to be” the auxiliary and the relative pronoun can be ellipsed.
E.g.
They repaired the houses [that was] damaged in the typhoon.
I spoke to the man [who was] working at the front desk.
Thus, if you want to say “The one having black hair”, it means you are really saying “The one who is having black hair”, which as another poster pointed out, is incorrect because “have” in this context is stative.
Thus, if you want to say “The one having black hair”, it means you are really saying “The one who is having black hair”, which as another poster pointed out, is incorrect because “have” in this context is stative.
Simple.[/quote]
It’s interesting that Fox’s “The lawyer having the weakest case lost.” sounds like it could be possible to my ear, more so than “My friend having black hair…” at least. I think it’s still incorrect though, for the same reason.
It sounds like it might be correct because “have” in “to have an experience” is sometimes stative, and sometimes non-stative.
On your CV you say you have experience in teaching English. That’s the stative sense of have. But you might also say “As we climbed the mountain, we felt we were having a great experience”, which would be non-stative.
But “have” in the laywer example is stative, so it would be wrong.
Thus, if you want to say “The one having black hair”, it means you are really saying “The one who is having black hair”, which as another poster pointed out, is incorrect because “have” in this context is stative.
Simple.[/quote]
It’s interesting that Fox’s “The lawyer having the weakest case lost.” sounds like it could be possible to my ear, more so than “My friend having black hair…” at least. I think it’s still incorrect though, for the same reason.[/quote]
It’s not actually mine, but it is right. In a group of two lawyers, the one having the weaker case lost. It is perfectly fine and should be a defining relative clause. I have a problem with: The one having the weaker case won, because it is semantically ambiguous and, therefore, grammatically wrong.
There’s nothing semantically wrong with the one having the weaker case winning. It happens all the time in countries where the judiciary can be bribed.
Semantic ambiguity entails ungrammaticality? I don’t think so. What about jokes and puns?
