0
JungKim Posted 11 years ago
Grammar

Having his operation tomorrow, he is not allowed to eat anything this evening.

Having his operation tomorrow, he is not allowed to eat anything this evening.

Does this sentence work?

If so, in which way would it be construed?
(1) Because he has his operation tomorrow, he is not allowed to eat anything this evening.
(2) Because he is having his operation tomorrow, he is not allowed to eat anything this evening.
  

Top answer

We have a tendency to apply the sense of ownership to an operation, and the expectancy that its occurrence is a certainty. Thus, “has” or “having” is generally used instead of the future tense “will have”. An alternate grammatical treatment is “With his operation tomorrow…” but your sentence is common.

— Wilpeter

  • We have a tendency to apply the sense of ownership to an operation, and the expectancy that its occurrence is a certainty.
  • Thus, “has” or “having” is generally used instead of the future tense “will have”.
  • An alternate grammatical treatment is “With his operation tomorrow…” but your sentence is common.
  • Both ‘construed’ versions are the same in meaning.
  • If you wanted to construe one over the other, you would change the original sentence to, “Since he has his…” or “Since he will be having…”
Free · every Monday

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.

8 Answers
0
We have a tendency to apply the sense of ownership to an operation, and the expectancy that its occurrence is a certainty. Thus, “has” or “having” is generally used instead of the future tense “will have”. An alternate grammatical treatment is “With his operation tomorrow…” but your sentence is common.
Both ‘construed’ versions are the same in meaning. If you wanted to construe one over the
0
0
JungKimHaving his operation tomorrow, he is not allowed to eat anything this evening. Does this sentence work?
Not for me. No.
JungKimIf so, in which way would it be construed?(1) Because he has his operation tomorrow, he is not allowed to eat anything this evening.(2) Because he is having his operation tomorrow, he is not allowed to e
0
0
CalifJimWell, as I said, it doesn't work, but as far as those because-clauses go, for all practical purposes they have the same meaning. Both are correct, however.
If both the sentences with because are correct, you can generally reduce the because-clause of either of those sentences into a participial clause (Having his operation tomor
0
0
JungKimDoes that mean that the reduction to participial clauses doesn't work for either of these particular because-clauses?
Yes. That's what it means.

CJ
0
0
CalifJim JungKimDoes that mean that the reduction to participial clauses doesn't work for either of these particular because-clauses?Yes. That's what it means.CJ
Is that because the resulting participial clause happens to refer to a future time, which doesn't exactly match the time of the main clause?
0
0
JungKimIs that because the resulting participial clause happens to refer to a future time, which doesn't exactly match the time of the main clause?
I haven't really thought about it. I think that explanation sounds reasonable, though.

You could say this: Having scheduled his operation for tomorrow, he isn't allowed to eat anything this evening.
0
0
CalifJimHaving scheduled his operation for tomorrow, he isn't allowed to eat anything this evening.
The only problem with that phrasing is that the patient likely didn’t do the scheduling.
0
0
wilpeterThe only problem with that phrasing is that the patient likely didn’t do the scheduling.
Then, how about this?
Having his operation scheduled for tomorrow, he isn't allowed to eat anything this evening.
0

Related Questions