Do you never say "I had my bag stolen"?

I see nothing wrong with either. Who taught you that?

TeleostomiI was taught that you never say (1) "My bag was stolen." You should say (2) "I had my bag stolen." Why is (1) wrong?

I was surprised by the question. I have never been taught that sentence 1 is wrong.

The only problem with (1) is directness, but in some situations you have to say what you have to say. And it's correct grammatically.

(2) is more indirect.

Teleostomi
I was taught that you never say (1) "My bag was stolen." You should say (2) "I had my bag stolen." Why is (1) wrong?

Actually, I prefer the first. In the following sentences, "I had....." indicates that I wanted the action to happen and provided the opportunity".

I

Maybe someone would say (2) is not good. But I think (2) is also ok.

Even in our Chinese language, we say things similar; though it's not me who really caused the loss of the bag, we can still use that structure. Maybe it contains some meaning like vague self-condemning.

It’s only a student’s two cents.

While it may be true that the far larger proportion of uses are the causative type, that had construction is also very common in non-causative situations -- usually misfortunes experienced. It's not always the most elegant way of describing the situation, but it is useful at times. The past participle must be transitive; the noun which precedes it is its object.

... had +

TeleostomiI was taught that you never say (1) "My bag was stolen." You should say (2) "I had my bag stolen." Why is (1) wrong?

If it was your teacher, fire him/her. Both are correct.

Thanks everyone, You're all great, I completely understood what should be memorized.

The non-causative use of "have ...pp." is also good for me to blush up English.

Brush up, not blush up

Out of topic, I was wondering if the title of the thread: "Do you never say 'I had my bag stolen'?" is correct.

Sounds wrong to me. If it's ok, could somebody explain me why?

Thanks.