that had -> having?

Question

I want to make this sentence shorter:

Also, items that had poor parameter estimates were removed from the analysis.

Is it correct to turn that had into having?

Also, items having poor parameter estimates were removed from the analysis.

It doesn't sound good to me. I would appreciate it if you could give me other alternatives.

@medica Could that have or that had always (when have means possession) replaced by with? It's interesting to me :) — Ehsan88, Commented Apr 1, 2014 at 13:38
With is tenseless. I won't say always, but generally, yes. — anongoodnurse, Commented Apr 1, 2014 at 13:39
@EhsanAbd: It's not a matter of replacing one string with another. Any relative clause with a relative pronoun as subject, and with have in its 'possess' sense as the only verb, may be converted into a participle having phrase, or in most cases also may be converted into a prepositional phrase using with. But you're not replacing words; you're replacing Constructions. Words are the mortar of sentences, but constructions are the bricks. — John Lawler, Commented Apr 1, 2014 at 14:12
@JohnLawler your comment really merits to be the answer. Please post it as an answer so that I tick it. :) — Ehsan88, Commented Apr 3, 2014 at 9:54

user66974user66974 · Accepted Answer · 2014-04-01 14:41:32Z

1

I like boh sentences contructions. The use of gerund sounds ok to me.

The gerund refers to a characteristic present at that specific time.

answered Apr 1, 2014 at 14:41

user66974

Add a comment |

1 Answer 1