Simple Grammar

Question

"Having stayed there for just 15 minutes, I clearly understood that place was a disaster."

I don't understand why we are using the word 'Having' here? Why we are not using after? In what part of speech it lies? Is it an adverb?

CalifJim · Accepted Answer

It's called a participial construction. It's used to make a non-finite clause. There are two forms, with and without 'having'—the simple form and the perfect form.

Staying there for just 15 minutes, I clearly understood the place was a disaster. (simple)
Having stayed there for just 15 minutes, I clearly understood the place was a disaster. (perfect)

The perfect form shows temporal anteriority to the situation in the main clause, and the subject of the non-finite clause is typically the same as the subject of the main clause.

After I had stayed there for just 15 minutes, I clearly understood the place was a disaster.
=
Having stayed there ...

"because" is also implied:

Because I had stayed there ...

CJ

LeGion12359 · Answer

CalifJimIt's called a participial construction. It's used to make a non-finite clause. There are two forms, with and without 'having'—the simple form and the perfect form.Staying there for just 15 minutes, I clearly understood the place was a disaster. (simple)Having stayed there for just 15 minutes, I clearly understood the place was a disaster. (perfect)The perfect form shows temporal anteriority to the situation in the main clause, and the subject of the non-finite clause is typically the same as the subject of the main clause.After I had stayed there for just 15 minutes, I clearly understood the place was a disaster.=Having stayed there ..."because" is also implied:Because I had stayed there ...CJ

Alright, I understood. But how can u say that the sentence containing the word' having' is perfect when non-finite clauses don't show any tense?

CalifJim · Answer

LeGion12359But how can u you say that the sentence containing the word' having' is perfect when non-finite clauses don't show any tense?

"perfect" does not describe a tense. It describes an aspect. You might say that anything (finite or non-finite) that has perfect aspect shows anteriority (something happening before something else).

That's why there is no perfect tense. There is only a present perfect tense and a past perfect tense. These are the present tense with perfect aspect and the past tense with perfect aspect, respectively. In a similar way you can have participial constructions (which are non-finite forms, not tenses) with or without perfect aspect.

CJ

"u" instead of "you" is a very, very bad mistake on an English forum, by the way.

LeGion12359 · Answer

Thank you

, I understood. But there is a little confusion in my head regarding the use of simple aspect in non-finite clauses. Like:
"Staying there for just 15 minutes, I clearly understood the place was a disaster."
In the above sentence, can we use 'stayed' instead of 'staying' without changing the aspect of the clause?

LeGion12359 · Answer

CalifJim"u" instead of "you" is a very, very bad mistake on an English forum, by the way.

Sorry for that, I got that bad habit from mobile texting.

CalifJim · Answer

LeGion12359"Staying there for just 15 minutes, I clearly understood the place was a disaster."In the above sentence, can we use 'stayed' instead of 'staying' without changing the aspect of the clause?

You mean, can you do this ...

Stayed there for just 15 minutes, I clearly understood ....

No. That's not grammatical.
'staying' is called the present participle; it's an "active" participle.
'stayed' is called the past participle; it's a "passive" participle.

In this context "stay" is not a transitive verb. It's intransitive. That means it can't take an object. If a verb can't take an object, it can't be used in the passive. So the passive (past) participle "stayed" can't be used here (unless 'having' precedes it, as shown earlier in this thread).

The only choices you have are:

Staying there ...
Having stayed there ...

CJ

LeGion12359 · Answer

CalifJimYou mean, can you do this ...Stayed there for just 15 minutes, I clearly understood ....No. That's not grammatical. 'staying' is called the present participle; it's an "active" participle. 'stayed' is called the past participle; it's a "passive" participle.In this context "stay" is not a transitive verb. It's intransitive. That means it can't take an object. If a verb can't take an object, it can't be used in the passive. So the passive (past) participle "stayed" can't be used here (unless 'having' precedes it, as shown earlier in this thread).The only choices you have are:Staying there ...Having stayed there ...CJ

Thank you. I need to focus more on my Grammar.
Just one last question Teacher.
"Staying there for just 15 minutes, I cleary understood the place was a disaster."
Can I say the above sentence like this without changing it's meaning (tense)?
"I stayed there for just 15 minutes and clearly understood the place was a disaster."

CalifJim · Answer

LeGion12359"Staying there for just 15 minutes, I clearly understood the place was a disaster." Can I say the above sentence like this without changing it's meaning (tense)? "I stayed there for just 15 minutes and clearly understood the place was a disaster."

You can make that change. Yes.

CJ

LeGion12359 · Answer

CalifJimYou can make that change. Yes.CJ

Thank you a bunch.

Simple Grammar

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions