Take the 2-minute tour ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I'm trying to work out if this sentence is correct, especially the usage of "having had seen".

He said he thought it having had seen my medical record.

share|improve this question

closed as general reference by FumbleFingers, MετάEd, StoneyB, Mahnax, Cameron Sep 19 '12 at 5:12

This question is too basic; it can be definitively and permanently answered by a single link to a standard internet reference source designed specifically to find that type of information.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

    
You might have some luck if you google "past participle" (not "past principle", though...). –  Billy Sep 18 '12 at 9:59
    
Other than that you apparently mean 'past participle ', not 'principle', the sentence itself is fine. Considering the situation that is being explained by this sentence, it seems the only appropriate way to phrase it, even though it is a cumbersome and non-standard expression. There's no reason to suspect if this sentence is correct. –  Kris Sep 18 '12 at 11:04
2  
@Kris: OP's sentence isn't "fine" at all! Perhaps you skimmed it and simply didn't notice that extraneous and totally ungrammatical "had". I think this question is General Reference - it's just too basic for ELU. –  FumbleFingers Sep 18 '12 at 12:18
    
The "had" is neither extraneous nor ungrammatical. –  Kris Sep 18 '12 at 13:28

6 Answers 6

"Having had seen" doesn't make sense, in the same way that "he has had seen" doesn't make sense. The correct form is "having seen".

You can only do a very limited number of things with a past participle. One of the things you can do is turn it into a finite verb by putting "has", "had", "will have", etc. in front of it; another is turn it into a sort of participial adjective by putting "having" in front of it. Anyway, one of the things you can't do with it is turn it into another participle: even though "having seen" and "had seen" look like they might be present and past participles (compare with "having", "had" or with "eating", "eaten"), they don't act as such: you can't say "he is having read the message" or "he has had read the message", in the same way as you can say "he is eating the cake" or "he has eaten the cake". So "had seen" is not a past participle, and as such, you can't stick "having" on the front in the same way you can with "eaten".

I think a (thick) grammar book will do a much better job of explaining this than I will, so I refer you to any one of those.

share|improve this answer

The sentence seems to be describing three events which occurred in the following order:

  1. He saw my medical record.
  2. He thought something.
  3. He said what he thought.

If that is the case, then what is required is He said he thought it having seen my medical record. Without context, even that still isn’t very explicit, but what you probably need to note is that the construction having had seen doesn't occur in English.

share|improve this answer

You're trying to construct either a participial phrase or an adverb clause.

You can edit your sentence this way:

  • Participial Phrase

He said that was what he thought after seeing my medical record.

Or,

He said that was what he thought having seen my medical record.

  • Adverbial Clause

He said that was what he thought after he had seen my medical record.

I think your construction "having had seen" is a kind of mix up of both participial phrase and adverbial clause.

P.S. I took the liberty of changing the wording in your independent clause.

share|improve this answer

As Barrie notes, "having had seen" does not make sense.

You could say, "He said he thought it, having seen my medical record." That is, because he saw my medical record, now he thinks it.

Or you could say, "He said he thought it, having had my medical record." That is, because he was in possession of my medical record, now he thinks it. (In this case having the record and seeing the record mean pretty much the same thing, as "having" in context would mean had it in his hands so he could see it. But in other context it could mean something very different.)

But "having had seen" ... doesn't really mean anything.

share|improve this answer

Take a look at this Ngram.

Having seen is the most common, as he had seen is quite rare, and having had seen is so unused that it doesn't even show. Having had seen on its own still doesn't register.

In short, having had seen is extremely non-standard. Hardly anybody says that, probably because it doesn't make any sense.

share|improve this answer

when we want to mention a situation which has finished and the effect has been remained we use such structure but in your case he means that he has seen the something in the past but the thing he has seen is the object he has used such passive like structure,

I hope it helps,

share|improve this answer
    
@rouring-fish: why down voted? missundersting from me! –  Mohammad Rafiee Sep 18 '12 at 17:53
    
-1 This answer is incoherent as it stands. I think you've got a point, but it's very difficult to understand what you mean because a)You set all down at once, with no punctuation or other helpful formatting; b)Your references ('such', 'he') are unclear; and c)Your structure and syntax are unidiomatic. –  StoneyB Sep 19 '12 at 21:07

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.