Does "had have been" exist and what tense is it?

I had have seen her

closed as off-topic by NVZ, JEL, CJM, Hellion, Laurel Jun 16 '17 at 21:13

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 11
    Perhaps the contraction "I'd have seen her" is confusing: that contracts would, not had. – Andrew Leach Feb 13 '14 at 8:06
  • No, but you can have had beans :) – Leon Conrad Feb 13 '14 at 8:08
  • He had to have been here, because I can smell those beans! :) – F.E. Feb 13 '14 at 8:49
  • And you can have been had. – David Schwartz Feb 13 '14 at 10:25
  • This is pretty much a variant of english.stackexchange.com/questions/138790/… perhaps a close enough variant to be a duplicate. – Jon Hanna Feb 13 '14 at 12:17

No: as an auxillary verb have (and so had) takes the past participle.

So "I have see her" is wrong and so is "I had have seen her".

You also cannot pile up have as auxiliary verbs. So while "I have had breakfast" is correct, "I have had seen her" would also be wrong.

  • You can pile up a lot of auxiliary verbs if you're clever. "None of the dogs I have had have had guard dog training". – David Schwartz Feb 13 '14 at 10:42
  • 2
    @DavidSchwartz "[None of the dogs (that) I have had] have had guard dog training" involves a relative clause that is part of the subject. So your two pairs of "have had" are in two different clauses. – F.E. Feb 13 '14 at 12:03

The past perfect is formed with the auxiliary, have, in the past simple and the main verb in the past participle.

I had seen her

The present perfect is formed with the auxiliary have in the present simple and again, the main verb in the past participle

I have seen her

Therefore the sentence below

I had have seen her

is a mixture of two perfect aspect constructions and I would consider it to be ungrammatical. Native speakers and non-natives would be confused reading or hearing that expression because the time reference is very unclear.

When did you see her? Recently (present perfect)? Or did you see her before another event in the past (past perfect)?

  • 1
    "I wouldn't know if she was a good therapist; none of the patients I had have seen her." – David Schwartz Feb 13 '14 at 10:28
  • @DavidSchwartz Then you would need a comma after had. None of the patients I had, have seen her. – Mari-Lou A Feb 13 '14 at 10:30
  • I think it's unreadable with a comma there. You can find dozens of similar constructions with no comma and I can't find a single one with it. "The professors I had have been helpful." "None of the books I had have been misplaced." And so on. – David Schwartz Feb 13 '14 at 10:36
  • 1
    If the question really is just "Can you say 'I had have seen her'." then it doesn't belong here. (Perhaps on ell.) – David Schwartz Feb 13 '14 at 10:49
  • 1
    @DavidSchwartz "[[none of the patients [(that) I had] have seen her" involves a relative clause that is part of the subject -- the main clause is headed by "have". – F.E. Feb 13 '14 at 11:53

This technically incorrect usage is quite common in English speaking countries now. Often it indicates a mixup between a conditional present and past perfect. For example: "If the weather had been better, we could have played." "If the weather would have been better, we could have played." What often comes out in spoken English is "If the weather had've been better we could've played." "had" is replacing "would" in the same way that "of" replaces "have" in conditional sentences (eg "I would of gone to work if my car hadn't broken down"). This is just language in evolution.

  • 1
    You should some cite reliable sources for what you assert, especially in your first sentence. In my experience, it's not at all common. Writing would of for would've is somewhat common but it is also sometimes done on purpose to represent colloquial speech. – AmE speaker Jun 10 '17 at 19:40
  • It is very familiar to me in England (colloquially). See perhaps journals.openedition.org/anglophonia/790 for an analysis. And a detailed analysis from Australia: theaussieenglishpodcast.com/pronunciation-hadve-hadah-dve-dah . I think Daniel is right in connecting it with "would". "Would" and "Had" both get contracted to "’d" and then a "would have" gets uncontracted into a "had have". – Tim MB Feb 25 at 20:56

I cannot think of a context where that would be correct usage.

  • 1
    How about, "The best days I have ever had have been spent with my father". – David Schwartz Feb 13 '14 at 10:26
  • I would write: The best days I have ever had were spent with my father. – Mari-Lou A Feb 13 '14 at 10:36
  • @Mari-LouA I'm not saying you have to use "had have been", just that you can, and it's perfectly fluent and understandable. In any event, you changed the tense, and thus the meaning (I'm describing the effect of the process of spending them, you're describing the effect of the fact that they were spent). – David Schwartz Feb 13 '14 at 10:37
  • 1
    @DavidSchwartz Your example "[The best days (that) I have ever had] have been spent with my father" also involves a relative clause that is part of the subject. Also, there's "What it was was bad". – F.E. Feb 13 '14 at 11:59

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