Is it possible to rewrite it this way?

Question

Hello teachers/native speakers.We read the email sent by the manager.I wonder whether I could rewrite this sentence as follows:We read the email having been sent by the manager. Thank you very much for your help.

CalifJim · Accepted Answer

Tanner92I wonder whether I could rewrite this sentence as follows

Wonder no more! No, no, no!

CJ

Tanner92 · Answer

Thank you.

In these three sentences "having been" would not be correct. Ok.

- The trees ~~(having been)~~ blown down in last night´s storm have been moved off the road.
- The new equipment ~~(having been)~~ obtained by the hospital will allow far more patients to be treated.
- We read the email sent ~~(having been sent)~~ by the manager.

However I don´t understand why it is that the three sentences below work differently and "stopped, given, told" would not be the only option I would have. Here I could also use the "having been" which would be incorrect in the first three sentences. How come?

- Having been stopped by the police, I had to finish the call. (Or "Stopped by the police, I had to...")
- Having been given the money, she left. (Or "Given the money, I left.")
- Having been told that he had sixty days... (Or "Told that he had sixty days left...")

CalifJim · Answer

Tanner92How come?

It's all a matter of position in the sentence (word order). I'll illustrate with just one example, and you can apply it to the others.

The trees blown down are the trees which were blown down. This is a reduced relative clause. It's a relative clause with a few words left out. This just tells you which trees you are talking about — the ones that were blown down.

It's also partially a matter of style that a participle clause (below) is usually placed at the beginning or the end of a sentence. The meaning is like a because-clause. That's why this one tells you more than the first one.

Having been blown down in the storm, the trees have been moved off the road.
~ Because they were blown down in the storm, the trees have been moved off the road.

We wouldn't normally stick a because-clause right after a subject like that, so we don't normally stick a participle clause there either.

?The trees, because they were blown down in the storm, have been moved off the road.
~ ?The trees, having been blown down in the storm, have been moved off the road.

Well, yes, you can do it to create an odd effect in your fiction, or perhaps you could fit something like this in your poetry, but recognize that these sorts of sentences are not used in ordinary writing, whether everyday writing or formal writing.
______________

That said, the chief objection to your original sentence was that a participle clause so often applies to the subject of a sentence that what you wrote can seem like "we" were sent by the manager. Rearranging so that the participle clause comes next to the subject give the following:

Having been sent by the manager, we read the email.

CJ

Tanner92 · Answer

CalifJimWe wouldn't normally stick a because-clause right after a subject like that, so we don't normally stick a participle clause there either.?The trees, because they were blown down in the storm, have been moved off the road.~ ?The trees, having been blown down in the storm, have been moved off the road.

Can this really be interpreted it is that because of the because only?

I will give you an example why I think there might be something more involved:

- I found her having been waiting for 3 hours for her husband.

I was told by a non-native teacher that in her opinion this is more acceptable than other examples - the one with a tree, email and the equipment.

I am really grateful for your last comment on my question - in some way it is really helping but I am just afraid it is more complete

CalifJim · Answer

Tanner92Can this really be interpreted it is that because of the because only?

If I understand your question correctly, the answer is no. The relationship of a participle clause to the main clause it accompanies is not always a because relationship. There are a lot of scholarly articles which have been written trying to list all the different relationships that exist between such pairs of clauses. The reader needs to supply the relationship that makes the most sense for the text at hand.

Tanner92I found her having been waiting for 3 hours for her husband.

Oh my goodness! That is really not a good sentence I'm very sorry to say.

Note that perfect continuous participials are really not that commonly used. (having been waiting, having been taking, having been going, etc.) Maybe it's because there are two -ing words close together, an effect that is normally avoided if possible. The perfect passive is much more common. (having seen, having sent, having told, etc.)

Whatever meaning that sentence is trying to convey (and I'm not sure what it is), there must be a better way to do it. Maybe this was the intended meaning?

When I [saw / met / found] her, she had been waiting for her husband for three hours.

CJ

Is it possible to rewrite it this way?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions