... conflict of rules — which rule to apply first?

Question

Hi everybody

A dictionary says that a verb "have" can be used for saying that something happens to you or you experience something if the past participle is placed after the object of "have."

I had my wallet stolen. (Rule1)

Rule 2 is past participle can be placed after the noun, which is equivalent to the meaning of ellipsis of "a relative pronoun"and "be verb."

- He was sitting at a table covered with papers. (= a table which was covered with papers)

If I say that I had my hair cut by Beyonce's hairstylist.

I don't think it has the meaning of Rule 2, such as

"I had my hair which which was/had been cut by Beyonce's hair stylist."

If my understanding is correct, Rule 1 governs the meaning of a following phrase.

(If Beyonce says that:)

I had a book written (about me by a ghost writer).

Could it be the meaing of Rule 2?

thanks

AlpheccaStars · Accepted Answer

There is usually no conflict at all.

Rule 1:

"Have" and a few other verbs are "causative" verbs, that is, the indicate that another action is forced, permitted or caused to happen by the main subject.
http://www.englishpage.com/minitutorials/let.html

John had his hair cut by a stylist. = John caused the action of "his hair was cut."
Mom let John drive her car. = Mom allowed the action of "John drives her car."

You cannot remove the group of words beginning with the verb without changing the meaning, or making nonsense of the sentence.
John had his hair. (=John owned or possessed his hair. It does not make much sense.)

Rule 2:
The other case is a participle in a non-finite clause "modifying" a noun.

His hair, cut by a famous stylist, looked perfect for the occasion.

You can remove the clause, and the sentence is still fine:
His hair looked perfect for the occasion.

Note:

This one could be interpreted in two different ways. But usually the context will permit the reader to determine the correct meaning.

John had a blue sports car manufactured in Japan.

1) John ordered this sports car to be manufactured by a company in Japan. (John is a billionaire who could special order a custom sports car.)
2) The sports car that John owned was a Honda, Toyota, Nissan, or some other Japanese brand. (John is from the middle-class.)

Anonymous · Answer

thanks for your clarifications.

So," I had my wallet stolen" coulld be the meaning of

I finally got back my wallet stolen by someone.

depending upon the context.

Is it correct

AlpheccaStars · Answer

Anonymousthanks for your clarifications.So," I had my wallet stolen" coulld be the meaning ofI finally got back my wallet stolen by someone.depending upon the context.Is it correct

No.

I had my wallet stolen. = You asked someone to steal your wallet. Maybe you wanted to claim insurance, or maybe have a good story for your wife about why you had no money. (You spent it drinking with your friends.)

I had / got my stolen wallet back. (I got my wallet that was stolen returned to me.)

Anonymous · Answer

thanks again.

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2765705

The above says

I had my wallet stolen in London. = The wallet was stolen in London.

, which is for sure based on Rule 1.

If Rule 2 applies,

I had my wallet which had been stolen in London.
=
I got my stolen wallet back.

Isn't it correct?

If correct, which rule to apply first is my question.

best regards,

AlpheccaStars · Answer

AnonymousI had my wallet stolen in London. = The wallet was stolen in London., which is for sure based on Rule 1.

Correct.

AnonymousI had my wallet which had been stolen in London.

The presence of the relative pronoun "which" makes it a relative clause. There is only one interpretation. The previously stolen wallet is in your possession.

Causative verbs are always followed by the past participle or bare infinitive.

I had my hair styled.
I had my car repaired.

Non-causative (possession):
I had the repaired car back by the end of the day.
I had the car which had been repaired back by the end of the day.
I had my car, which was repaired, back by the end of the day.

Fivejedjon · Answer

HAVE can be used in several ways in sentences in which a past participle appears.

1. I had stolen three books by the time I was 12. Past perfect of STEAL.
2. I had my car stolen so that I could collect the insurance. Causative HAVE
3. I had my car stolen while I was in the pub. = It happened that my car was stolen.
4. I had my car, stolen last month, for only three weeks. = ... which was stolen ...

Anonymous · Answer

many thanks for your helps for both gentlemen.

1. I had my car repaired.
2. I had my shoes shined.

Both are same meanings in results whichever rule to apply. You will get a repaired car and shined shoes in the end.

Hoever the meaning will be completely different, if I take the interpreation of Rule 2.
I had my wallet stolen in London. - wallet was stolen vs wallet is fianlly in my hand
I had my wallet delivered by the supplier. - asked for shipment vs confirmation of receipt

In the sentence 4, commas are put after "car" to make the meaing of ... which was stolen.

If I dropped the commas out of sentence 4, does it have meaning of .... which was stolen.

In another words,
I had my car repaired = S+V+O+C (if the past participle can be called as C)
On the other hand, If I read it as the sentence of a reduced relative clause,
I had my car repaired = S+V+C

In such cases, I'll have a book written about me by a ghost writer.
In a grammatical point of view, does it have S+V+C construction even if comma is omitted after written or me.

Best Regards,

Anonymous · Answer

Sorry I found my error
I had my car repaired = S+V+O (NOT: S+C+C)

In such cases, I'll have a book written about me by a ghost writer.
In grammatical point of view, does it have S+V+O construction with out comma after written or me?

Anonymous · Answer

fivejedjon-san Thank you for your reply You might find too many erros that you can not understand my qeustion.

> 4. I had my car, stolen last month, for only three weeks. = ... which was stolen ...

You have placed the comma after "car" so as to make the meaning of ....which was stolen ..
In a grammartical view point, you made S+V+O construction by putting the commas. If I erase the commas from your sentence 4, your sentence will be the construction of S+V+O+C (same as No2. & 3).
My question is if I say, "I had a book written about me by a ghost writer."
It'll be S+V+O+C
and if I say, "I had a book, written about me by a ghost writer."
It'll be S+V+O

and the above sentence without having the comma can not be interpreted as S+V+O construction regardless of the context.

Am I correct?

Best Regards,

... conflict of rules — which rule to apply first?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions