Having being

To be more specific, the question is related to the correctness of an eventual combination of gerunds/participles in English.

For example:

'Having involved in... '

'Being involved in...'

What about 'having being involved in...'? Is it meaningful in a certain sense?

Yes, it is possible, but this construction is context sensitive. If used incorrectly, it can be confusing to understand.

Noun case:

Having being such an iconic CEO for Apple and innovator for the tech industry, Steve Jobs announced his resignation for health reasons.

Passive case:

Thanks a lot, please allow me to modify your examples.

What if the second part of each sentence is in the present tense?

For instance:

Having being such an iconic CEO for Apple and innovator for the tech industry, Steve Jobs now announces his resignation for health reasons.

Passive case:

I don't think this is correct. You would definitely say "Having been such an iconic CEO..."

This is the past form of "Being such an...".

Same for "Having been cheated on..."

AnonymousIs there any grammatical construction in which 'having being' or 'having being ...-ed' or 'having being ...-ing' could possibly be correct?

No. The auxiliary have (in any of its forms) governs the past participle. being is a present participle, so it cannot follow any form of have, including having. There is no having

AnonymousWhat if the second part of each sentence is in the present tense?
For instance:

Hi,

I should reinterate; this is a rather complex sentence pattern that most people don't necessarily encounter every day. the tense can't be arbitrarily modified without having to consider the impacts it many have on sementics, logic, tense, continuity a

Hi,

I understand your comments completely. I agree, common acceptable utterance is " having been such iconic CEO..."

I know I may get an earful and may be wrong, but "being" seems to behave differently than the rest of present participle, such that I find "having being", though rarely used, but does exist. Again, I am not affirming its grammatical legitmacy, just sharing my views

No as CalifJim explained quite sufficiently, the construction "have being" is simply wrong. Of your sources the only one with a noticeable amount of credibility is the one from abcnews...and that frankly is just due to the name. I think in this case the "having being" can be traced back to a tired editor, who maybe wasn't concentrating enough on what he was writing. I am sure if you asked him or h

As far as explanation and grammar go, CJ is my hero. I am not debating his point. I said it from the top, this is a rare usage that I heard a few times before. It sounded wrong to most ears (perhaps we don't see it often), and I won't use it if I caould avoid it. But there are many such usages found among natives. Call ABCnews editor drunk if you will, but if we can't give al least a bit of credi

Thanks for all the replies, this matter seems complicated to me.

I also tried to figure it out searching with 'embedded participles' but could not find much about such constructs in English.