If he would have had
John Holmes
noteworthy example of somebody getting it right with a wording that has
often been criticised.
What do others think of the last sentence in this report?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/21/2749512.htm?site=news
[quote]
408kg man cut from chair, then dies
Posted Sat Nov 21, 2009 10:46am AEDT
A US man weighing 408 kilograms, who sat in a chair for the last eight
months of his life, died after medical workers had to dismantle his
mobile home to remove him, local media said.
Daniel Webb, 33, became immobile in March after hurting his knee and sat
in the reclining chair in his South Carolina home for months while
refusing doctor visits because he lacked health insurance, local WSPA-TV
said.
Authorities said Mr Webb's wife Ada called paramedics to their Greenwood
County mobile home on Wednesday after he complained of intense pain.
They had to cut him from the chair with special tools, after which they
found him with sores over his body and covered in human waste and then
dismantled half of his house to get him to an ambulance.
He died from cardiac arrest on the way to the hospital.
"If he would have had the proper care we tried to get for him back in
March this would have never happened," Mr Webb's wife said.
- AFP
[end quote]
--
Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au
Marius Hancu
> We often see examples of misusage posted here. But here, I think, is a
> noteworthy example of somebody getting it right with a wording that has
> often been criticised.
>
> "If he would have had the proper care we tried to get for him back in
> March this would have never happened," Mr Webb's wife said.
Tolerated, but not recommended. See 3 here:
http://tinyurl.com/yemyoex
Marius Hancu
James Hogg
Standard English usage would still be:
"If he had had the proper care we tried to get for him back in March
this would have never happened."
--
James
John Dean
> We often see examples of misusage posted here. But here, I think, is a
> noteworthy example of somebody getting it right with a wording that
> has often been criticised.
Nope, sorry, wrongity wrong wrong wrong
>
> What do others think of the last sentence in this report?
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/21/2749512.htm?site=news
> [quote]
>
> "If he would have had the proper care we tried to get for him back in
> March this would have never happened," Mr Webb's wife said.
>
If he *had* had ...
(had had had had some success with the aue crowd)
I suspect there's a confusion here with forms like "He would have had the
proper care if he'd accepted our help back in March"
--
John Dean
Oxford
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
>We often see examples of misusage posted here. But here, I think, is a
>noteworthy example of somebody getting it right with a wording that has
>often been criticised.
>
>What do others think of the last sentence in this report?
>http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/21/2749512.htm?site=news
>[quote]
<snip>
>"If he would have had the proper care we tried to get for him back in
>March this would have never happened," Mr Webb's wife said.
>[end quote]
The wording "If he would have had..." seems to me to be unidiomatic in
BrE, but the contracted form seems fine: "If he'd have had..."
Perhaps this is just a personal quirk.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Amethyst Deceiver
wrote:
>We often see examples of misusage posted here. But here, I think, is a
>noteworthy example of somebody getting it right with a wording that has
>often been criticised.
[snip]
>"If he would have had the proper care we tried to get for him back in
>March this would have never happened," Mr Webb's wife said.
to the best of my knowledge, this is unremarkable in USEnglish, but in
BrE it would have been "if he had had". Or possibly even "if he had've
had".
Marius Hancu
wrote:
> >We often see examples of misusage posted here. But here, I think, is a
> >noteworthy example of somebody getting it right with a wording that has
> >often been criticised.
>
> [snip]
>
> >"If he would have had the proper care we tried to get for him back in
> >March this would have never happened," Mr Webb's wife said.
>
> to the best of my knowledge, this is unremarkable in USEnglish
The American Heritage Book of English Usage says otherwise. It isn't
available any more on the Web, seemingly based on Copyright
restrictions, but it was at the enclosed link:
-----------
"would have" for "had."
In spoken English, there is a growing tendency to use "would have" in
place of the subjunctive "had" in contrary-to-fact clauses, such as
"If she would have" (instead of 'if she had') only listened to me,
this would never have happened".
But this usage is still widely considered an error in writing. Only 14
percent of the Usage Panel accepts it in the previously cited
sentence, and a similar amount—but 16 percent—accepts it in the
sentence "I wish you would have told me about this sooner."
The American Heritage® Book of English Usage.
http://www.bartleby.com/64/pages/page38.html
-----
Presently you can find it at:
http://tinyurl.com/y88dk8z
Marius Hancu
ke...@cam.ac.uk
John Dean <john...@fraglineone.net> wrote:
>John Holmes wrote:
>> We often see examples of misusage posted here. But here, I think, is a
>> noteworthy example of somebody getting it right with a wording that
>> has often been criticised.
>
>Nope, sorry, wrongity wrong wrong wrong
>
>>
>> What do others think of the last sentence in this report?
>> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/21/2749512.htm?site=news
>> [quote]
>>
>> "If he would have had the proper care we tried to get for him back in
>> March this would have never happened," Mr Webb's wife said.
>>
But isn't it "We offered him this care but he wouldn't have it; if he would
have had it this would never have happened". Of course, what we actually want
is "if he had woulded have it", but we can't do that, so the above is a
substitute. Certainly "if he had had" doesn't mean at all the same thing.
We need Prof Lawler on deficient modal verbs.....
Katy
Stan Brown
<see...@instead.com>:
>
> We often see examples of misusage posted here. But here, I think, is a
> noteworthy example of somebody getting it right with a wording that has
> often been criticised.
>
> What do others think of the last sentence in this report?
> in March this would have never happened," Mr Webb's wife said.
I think it's an error for "if he had had the proper care".
Why do you think it's correct? What distinguishes it from all the
(other) erroneous "if he would have had"s?
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Shikata ga nai...
Steve Hayes
>"If he would have had the proper care we tried to get for him back in
>March this would have never happened," Mr Webb's wife said.
I would have said "If he had had the proper care..."
- but I'm not a paramedic.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Amethyst Deceiver
It's over ten years old. Language changes - and as the writer implies,
usage was changing even when that was written.
Jonathan Morton
news:vcjig513jtqe7hpok...@4ax.com...
But "if he had have had" is a sort of double pluperfect - it just makes no
sense.
The suggestion from the OP that the "would" in the quotation was used in the
"was willing" sense seems far-fetched to me.
Regards
Jonathan
Athel Cornish-Bowden
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> said:
Not a personal quirk, I think (unless you and I share the same quirk).
--
athel
Amethyst Deceiver
<jonathan.mortonb...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>"Amethyst Deceiver" <ne...@lindsayendell.org.uk> wrote in message
>news:vcjig513jtqe7hpok...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:33:32 +1100, "John Holmes" <see...@instead.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>We often see examples of misusage posted here. But here, I think, is a
>>>noteworthy example of somebody getting it right with a wording that has
>>>often been criticised.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>"If he would have had the proper care we tried to get for him back in
>>>March this would have never happened," Mr Webb's wife said.
>>
>> to the best of my knowledge, this is unremarkable in USEnglish, but in
>> BrE it would have been "if he had had". Or possibly even "if he had've
>> had".
>
>But "if he had have had" is a sort of double pluperfect - it just makes no
>sense.
It may make no sense to you, but plenty of people say it.
>The suggestion from the OP that the "would" in the quotation was used in the
>"was willing" sense seems far-fetched to me.
Agreed.
Fred
"James Hogg" <Jas....@gOUTmail.com> wrote in message
news:heb596$vjm$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Standard English usage is:
James Hogg
That's what I would have written had I not had this conditioned urge
to work in a "would".
--
James
xerlome
> >>March this would have never happened," Mr Webb's wife said.
> The suggestion from the OP that the "would" in the quotation was used in the
> "was willing" sense seems far-fetched to me.
The element of <will> in <would> in this formation can be more
articulate when used with discretion and could apply here. Since the
man refused care ("sat
in the reclining chair in his South Carolina home for months while
refusing doctor visits because he lacked health insurance", from the
quote), it could mean: <If he had sought the proper care...>, as
opposed to: <If he had had the proper care (independent of whether he
had sought it or not ...)>.
The trouble is that the formation is often used without that
discretion, which weakens its usefulness.
ER Lyon
Mike Lyle
"James Hogg" <Jas....@gOUTmail.com> wrote in message
one's ethical code. The only person allowed it is Tony Cooper.
--
Mike.
Mike Lyle
"James Hogg" <Jas....@gOUTmail.com> wrote in message
I'd have made the meaning clearer: I agree that the speaker is most
unlikely to have meant the "willing" sense of "would".
--
Mike.
Peter Moylan
The sentence John quotes does not fall under case 3 of your reference.
Literally, it means "Had he been willing to have ...". I agree with John
that this is correct, and I'm surprised by everyone who is trying to
interpret it as a distortion of "If he had had ..." - which is also
correct, but has a different meaning.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Stan Brown
<ne...@lindsayendell.org.uk>:
>
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:17:12 -0000, "Jonathan Morton"
> <jonathan.mortonb...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >"Amethyst Deceiver" <ne...@lindsayendell.org.uk> wrote in message
> >news:vcjig513jtqe7hpok...@4ax.com...
> >> but in BrE it would have been "if he had had". Or possibly even
> >> "if he had've had".
> >
> >But "if he had have had" is a sort of double pluperfect - it just makes no
> >sense.
>
> It may make no sense to you, but plenty of people say it.
Lots of people say "would of gone" for "would have gone" or "the
thing is, is that ...". It doesn't make them standard English.
Stan Brown
> Standard English usage is:
>
> "If he had had the proper care we tried to get for him back in March
> this would have never happened."
And even more standard usage would put a comma after "March". :-)
Marius Hancu
> Marius Hancu wrote:
> > On Nov 22, 5:33 am, "John Holmes" <see...@instead.com> wrote:
>
> >> We often see examples of misusage posted here. But here, I think,
> >> is a noteworthy example of somebody getting it right with a wording
> >> that has often been criticised.
>
> >> "If he would have had the proper care we tried to get for him back
> >> in March this would have never happened," Mr Webb's wife said.
>
> > Tolerated, but not recommended. See 3 here:
> >http://tinyurl.com/yemyoex
>
> The sentence John quotes does not fall under case 3 of your reference.
> Literally, it means "Had he been willing to have ...". I agree with John
> that this is correct, and I'm surprised by everyone who is trying to
> interpret it as a distortion of "If he had had ..." - which is also
> correct, but has a different meaning.
I'd be very much surprised for this to be about his willingness. That
might be what the wife wanted to say, but the sentence is IMO more
about what treatment he could have had, but he didn't for one reason
or another, without any willingness being openly indicated.
She could have said:
"If he would have _agreed/wanted/been willing_ to [have] the proper
care we tried to get for him back
in March this would have never happened."
to talk about his willingness and then your "Had he been willing to
have ..." would be perfect.
Marius Hancu
Steve Hayes
>Fred wrote:
>> Standard English usage is:
>>
>> "If he had had the proper care we tried to get for him back in March
>> this would have never happened."
>
>That's what I would have written had I not had this conditioned urge
>to work in a "would".
What conditioned the urge?
Evan Kirshenbaum
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:17:12 -0000, "Jonathan Morton"
> <jonathan.mortonb...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>"Amethyst Deceiver" <ne...@lindsayendell.org.uk> wrote in message
>>news:vcjig513jtqe7hpok...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:33:32 +1100, "John Holmes" <see...@instead.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"If he would have had the proper care we tried to get for him back in
>>>>March this would have never happened," Mr Webb's wife said.
>>>
>>> to the best of my knowledge, this is unremarkable in USEnglish, but in
>>> BrE it would have been "if he had had". Or possibly even "if he had've
>>> had".
>>
>>But "if he had have had" is a sort of double pluperfect - it just makes no
>>sense.
>
> It may make no sense to you, but plenty of people say it.
People say "if he had have had" by you? I'm fairly sure I would've
noticed it if I'd ever encountered it. "If he'd have had" is common,
of course, but that's taken as "If he would have had" around here.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |We never met anyone who believed in
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |fortune cookies. That's astounding.
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |Belief in the precognitive powers
|of an Asian pastry is really no
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |wackier than belief in ESP,
(650)857-7572 |subluxation, or astrology, but you
|just don't hear anyone preaching
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ |Scientific Cookie-ism.
| Penn and Teller
Peter Moylan
"Would have been willing" is awkward, because "would" is the subjunctive
of "will", i.e. it already implies willingness.
"Will" as a verb in its own right, rather than as an auxiliary, is
becoming less common, but it's still used now and then.
John Holmes
Exactly!
--
Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au
John Holmes
> John Holmes wrote:
>>
>> "If he would have had the proper care we tried to get for him back in
>> March this would have never happened," Mr Webb's wife said.
>
> Standard English usage would still be:
>
> "If he had had the proper care we tried to get for him back in March
> this would have never happened."
But that changes the meaning. To keep the same meaning, you would have
to say something like "If he hadn't refused the proper care..."
John Holmes
>
> The suggestion from the OP that the "would" in the quotation was used
> in the "was willing" sense seems far-fetched to me.
I was merely taking the report as written at face value, since I am not
a mind reader.
It quite clearly explains that he refused earlier treatment and then
follows that with the "If he would have had..."
How do you know that the lady intended differently?
John O'Flaherty
wrote:
>John Holmes wrote:
>> We often see examples of misusage posted here. But here, I think, is
>> a noteworthy example of somebody getting it right with a wording that
>> has often been criticised.
>>
>> What do others think of the last sentence in this report?
>> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/21/2749512.htm?site=news
>> [quote] 408kg man cut from chair, then dies
>>
>> Posted Sat Nov 21, 2009 10:46am AEDT
>>
>> A US man weighing 408 kilograms, who sat in a chair for the last
>> eight months of his life, died after medical workers had to dismantle
>> his mobile home to remove him, local media said.
>>
>> Daniel Webb, 33, became immobile in March after hurting his knee and
>> sat in the reclining chair in his South Carolina home for months
>> while refusing doctor visits because he lacked health insurance,
>> local WSPA-TV said.
>>
>> Authorities said Mr Webb's wife Ada called paramedics to their
>> Greenwood County mobile home on Wednesday after he complained of
>> intense pain.
>>
>> They had to cut him from the chair with special tools, after which
>> they found him with sores over his body and covered in human waste
>> and then dismantled half of his house to get him to an ambulance.
>>
>> He died from cardiac arrest on the way to the hospital.
>>
>> "If he would have had the proper care we tried to get for him back in
>> March this would have never happened," Mr Webb's wife said.
>
>Standard English usage would still be:
>
>"If he had had the proper care we tried to get for him back in March
>this would have never happened."
I'd say "would never have happened."
--
John
James Hogg
So would I, but is the other word order non-standard?
--
James
Donna Richoux
I like "never would have happened." It allows the natural "woulda".
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
John O'Flaherty
wrote:
Maybe not, but the meaning seems a little paradoxical - asserting
first, then negating.
--
John
Steve Hayes
But the other allows the equally natural "would've".
John Varela
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:32:58 +1300 from Fred <r...@parachute.net.nz>:
>
> > Standard English usage is:
> >
> > "If he had had the proper care we tried to get for him back in March
> > this would have never happened."
>
> And even more standard usage would put a comma after "March". :-)
And even better would have been, "If he had received the proper care
we tried to get for him back in March, this would never have
happened."
--
John Varela
Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email
John Varela
<haye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:49:07 +0100, tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) wrote:
>
> >James Hogg <Jas....@gOUTmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> John O'Flaherty wrote:
>
> >> > I'd say "would never have happened."
> >>
> >> So would I, but is the other word order non-standard?
> >
> >I like "never would have happened." It allows the natural "woulda".
>
> But the other allows the equally natural "would've".
ITYM "would of".
Amethyst Deceiver
<kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>Amethyst Deceiver <ne...@lindsayendell.org.uk> writes:
>
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:17:12 -0000, "Jonathan Morton"
>> <jonathan.mortonb...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Amethyst Deceiver" <ne...@lindsayendell.org.uk> wrote in message
>>>news:vcjig513jtqe7hpok...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:33:32 +1100, "John Holmes" <see...@instead.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"If he would have had the proper care we tried to get for him back in
>>>>>March this would have never happened," Mr Webb's wife said.
>>>>
>>>> to the best of my knowledge, this is unremarkable in USEnglish, but in
>>>> BrE it would have been "if he had had". Or possibly even "if he had've
>>>> had".
>>>
>>>But "if he had have had" is a sort of double pluperfect - it just makes no
>>>sense.
>>
>> It may make no sense to you, but plenty of people say it.
>
>People say "if he had have had" by you? I'm fairly sure I would've
>noticed it if I'd ever encountered it. "If he'd have had" is common,
>of course, but that's taken as "If he would have had" around here.
I've certainly heard it. "He didn't ask me, but if he had've had, I
would have told him where to go."
Jerry Friedman
> Jonathan Morton wrote:
>
> > The suggestion from the OP that the "would" in the quotation was used
> > in the "was willing" sense seems far-fetched to me.
>
> I was merely taking the report as written at face value, since I am not
> a mind reader.
>
> It quite clearly explains that he refused earlier treatment and then
> follows that with the "If he would have had..."
>
> How do you know that the lady intended differently?
Not to answer for Jonathan, but I've heard "if he would have had"
many, many times for "if he had had", and never that I can remember
for "if he had been willing to have".
--
Jerry Friedman
John Varela
<ne...@lindsayendell.org.uk> wrote:
> I've certainly heard it. "He didn't ask me, but if he had've had, I
> would have told him where to go."
"...I would've had to tell him..." just to make it complete.
Mike Lyle
Yes, it's quite frequent in spoken BrE.
--
Mike.
John Lawler
> In article <7mso3tF3elln...@mid.individual.net>,
>
>
>
> John Dean <john-d...@fraglineone.net> wrote:
> >John Holmes wrote:
> >> We often see examples of misusage posted here. But here, I think, is a
> >> noteworthy example of somebody getting it right with a wording that
> >> has often been criticised.
>
>
> >>http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/21/2749512.htm?site=news
> >> [quote]
>
> >> March this would have never happened," Mr Webb's wife said.
>
> have had it this would never have happened". Of course, what we actually want
> is "if he had woulded have it", but we can't do that, so the above is a
> substitute. Certainly "if he had had" doesn't mean at all the same thing.
>
>
> Katy
The grammatical term is 'defective', rather than 'deficient', and the
defectiveness
of modal auxiliary verbs in English just means that (unlike German
modals)
they don't have all their principal parts, and consequently can't be
used in many
constructions:
*I musted go yesterday.
*He would prefer for me to can do it.
The result is that English has a whole bunch of "periphrastic" (same
basic sense
as "paraphrase") constructions that substitute for official modal
auxiliaries in
situations like those above:
I had to go yesterday. 'have
to' = 'must'
He would prefer for me to be able to do it. 'be able to =
'can'
This is all very idiomatic, with quite arbitrary affordances and
prohibitions,
like the fact that 'will' in an if-clause can't refer to the future,
but only to
willingness:
If it rains/*will rain tomorrow, the picnic's off.
If he will do the job, I'll hire him. (!= If he's going to do
the job, ...)
However, this is just a contributing factor to general cluelessness
about grammar. In this case, the issue is whether one uses the
practically defunct counterfactually inflected 'had had' for the
pluperfect
(which I gather is more common in the UK), or whether one uses the
periphrastic modal construction 'would have had' (often called the
"Conditional" construction by comparison with the German use of
'würden')
instead, which I gather is more of a N.American construction.
I certainly hear it, though I don't use it. It's probably pretty well
fixed
by now, and substituting a syntactic many-word construction for an
inflected construction has been completely normal behavior in English,
ever since English inflections started shrivelling up and dropping
off
English words, around 900 CE or so. Most of the syntax that so
bewilders us today is quite recent, dating from Shakespeare's time
or even much later.
One other side issue, contributing also to the statutory Anxious
Cluelessness, is that the 'had' of the counterfactual pluperfect
almost always gets contracted to apostrophe-D, and so does the
'would' of the periphrastic modal construction. However -- and
this is the tripping point -- the apostrophe-D resulting from 'had'
must be followed by a past participle (since it's pluperfect), while
the apostrophe-D resulting from 'would' must be followed by an
infinitive (since it's a modal auxiliary). If people confuse the
one with the other, they get into a morass that leads to 'had have'
when they attempt to reconstruct the sentence. Don't go there.
Yes, it's complicated. Sorry. Details often are. And there's
much more involved with grammar than one learned in grammar
school. Just like mathematics.
-John Lawler http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue/modals.html
Happy Hogswatch All and may Gods Bless Us, Every One.
(Atheists may request the vegetarian alternative.)
James Hogg
>
> I certainly hear it, though I don't use it. It's probably pretty
> well fixed by now, and substituting a syntactic many-word
> construction for an inflected construction has been completely normal
> behavior in English, ever since English inflections started
> shrivelling up and dropping off English words, around 900 CE or so.
> Most of the syntax that so bewilders us today is quite recent, dating
> from Shakespeare's time or even much later.
>
> One other side issue, contributing also to the statutory Anxious
> Cluelessness, is that the 'had' of the counterfactual pluperfect
> almost always gets contracted to apostrophe-D, and so does the
> 'would' of the periphrastic modal construction. However -- and this
> is the tripping point -- the apostrophe-D resulting from 'had' must
> be followed by a past participle (since it's pluperfect), while the
> apostrophe-D resulting from 'would' must be followed by an
> infinitive (since it's a modal auxiliary). If people confuse the one
> with the other, they get into a morass that leads to 'had have' when
> they attempt to reconstruct the sentence. Don't go there.
Too late. People have already gone there in their millions.
In speech I think it's likely that the reduced form of the conditional
"I would have had" -- "I'd a had" -- was transferred to the pluperfect
so that "If I had had", instead of being reduced to "If I'd had",
yielded "If I'd a had". The verb in both parts of a conditional sentence
would then have become identical:
"I'd a had money now if I'd a had more luck."
There are two ways to expand "If I'd a had" when people want to write it
or imagine that they are speaking more carefully: either the way now
common in AmE, "If I would have had", or the older "If I had have had"
(with the alternative "If I had of had").
Google Books has examples of the "If I had have had" construction
showing that it goes back a long way:
"If I had have been appointed to accept the cession" (1821, acting
governor of Florida)
"If I had have been sure" (1856, a British official in Hong Kong)
A grammar from 1829 says that constructions like "If I had have seen
him" are "solecisms too gross to need correction".
--
James