4

It has been suggested in some quarters that had have, followed by a past participle, is a regionalism that has no place in standard English grammar.

If I had have known you were coming, I would have been prepared, or If I'd have known you were coming, I would have been prepared, mean essentially the same as If I had known you were coming..... But the former is often used for emphasis, and it sounds perfectly idiomatic to me.

So is had have seen etc. grammatically correct?

  • 1
    I have heard this form of grammar often, so I think it's a legitimate form to discuss. In terms of grammar books, I have never seen this, so "officially" I'd say no. Let's wait and see what some other contribute on this. – michael_timofeev Nov 27 '15 at 10:16
  • Did you see this in writing, or hear it?...Because, I cannot recall seeing it in writing. – michael_timofeev Nov 27 '15 at 10:17
  • @michael_timofeev - The are a few usage instances in Ngram, but I think it is a regional/dialectal usage. – user66974 Nov 27 '15 at 10:29
  • 4
    I would parse "If I'd have known" as "If I would have known", not "If I had have known". Perhaps the latter is a backformation from the contraction, since "I'd" represents "I had" more often than "I would"? – hobbs Mar 20 '16 at 18:52
  • 2
    @hobbs I'm afraid I can't agree. Unless you think the English learned their English from Americans! (Not as silly as it might sound - it sometimes happens). But If I would have known... is definitely American in my view. In Britain it is had have. – WS2 Mar 21 '16 at 0:14
9

The had have construction in an if-clause is an example of what is commonly called the double perfect. This extract from grammar.about.com cites The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language's discussion of the usage, which it calls non-standard:

"Instead of an ordinary preterite perfect, a non-standard 'double perfect' is often found:

(9i) If it had've come yesterday he would surely have told her.
(9ii) I wish he hadn't've left.

This is largely restricted to speech (or the written representation of speech). It appears to be increasing in frequency, and though it is not as yet established as a standard form, it is used by many who in general speak standard English. From a grammatical point of view, it is a curious construction in that had is followed by a plain form, not a past participle; it is normally reduced to /əv/, and in writing is sometimes spelled of, indicating that it is not perceived as a form of have."

(Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey K. Pullum, The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, Cambridge University Press, 2002)

There's an extended discussion of the issue in Counterfactuality in non-standard subjunctive conditionals. The authors claim that there is a semantic difference between the standard and non-standard forms. Here is their opening section which offers references to possible explanations for the 'extra piece of morphology'.

  1. On standard and non-standard subjunctive conditionals: The data

English subjunctive conditionals can adopt different forms. The standard form of subjunctive conditionals (SC) is illustrated in (1). However, speakers of some dialects of English also accept some of the variants in (2) as subjunctive conditionals. The forms in (2) differ from (1) in that they include: would or had.

(1) If Jones had taken arsenic, he would have shown some symptoms. [SC]

(2) If Jones would have/ had have/ would’ve/ had’ve/ woulda’/ hada’/ would of / had of taken arsenic, he would have shown some symptoms. [NSSC]

The non-standard forms (NSSC) exemplified in (2) appeared in the 15th C, at the time when the subjunctive voice in English disappeared (Huddleston & Pullum 2002). While the NSSCs mark different registers, no differences have been observed in terms of interpretation between an NSSC and an SC. The extra piece of morphology has usually been considered vacuous: a redundant repetition (Wilson 1993), a phonological harmony effect (Molencki 2000), or a psychological effect (Boyland 1995).

The aim of this paper is two-fold: a) we present a novel empirical observation: we claim there is a contrast in meaning between (1) and (2); and b) we offer an analysis that predicts the differences in meaning.

  • I especially like phonological harmony - I think this is what I was meaning in the 2nd para of my answer! – Dan Nov 27 '15 at 11:36
  • 1
    @Dan. Merriam Webster's Dictionary of English Usage refers to the construction as the plupluperfect, which has its own phonological harmony! The MWDEU contends that the construction 'may simply represent an attempt by the speaker to impose a subjunctive marker on the standard past perfect'. This seems the most plausible explanation to me. – Shoe Nov 27 '15 at 11:48
  • 2
    Thank you for this excellent answer. It is precisely the sort of thing I was seeking, following the discussion which arose under this OP – WS2 Nov 27 '15 at 18:19
  • If the authors of this paper would've written their conclusion in English, I would've understood it. – MetaEd Dec 10 '15 at 23:46
6

If I had have known sounds like a 'regional' version of If I had known. The 'have' does not add any meaning as far as I can tell. The fact that I hear 'had have' often and even use it myself only confirms to me that it is idiomatic (and regional - Bristol UK at least) - it does not make it 'good English'!

I wonder if the usage arises simply because the construction had have sounds like might have, should have, could have etc ?

It's certainly 'out there' - Ngram I'd've.

  • But I'd've and I'd have are (can be) contractions for I would have. – Scott Jun 29 '16 at 4:46
0

I suspect that this form only works in a conditional phrase, typically preceded by if, such as this from a UK Parliament committee (Q264)

I am delighted to hear that you visited Newport and you could have dropped in for a cup of tea if I had have known, and I would have brought you up to date that it is no longer called the Patent Office

but even there had known would work as well as had have known.

-1

I don't know what tense is had have + past participle' As what I know, it should be 'Had + past participle of the verb'

I hope it helps.

  • Hello, Erlyn. If you read Shoe's answer, you'll see the standard of response ELU hopes will be provided. – Edwin Ashworth Nov 27 '15 at 12:09
-1

verbix.com has the conjugation tables of standard English in the best form. See table for to do here

Of course, there may be regional variants, but they aren't standard English.

Only in past perfect "had" (past tense) is followed by a second verb form, and that is "had"(past participle). An infinitive is not possible.

protected by tchrist Nov 7 '18 at 19:39

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

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