Is it correct to say "people having money" instead of "people who have money"? I.e. is it OK to use "having" as the opposite to "without"? In my opinion it is OK but a colleague of mine believes that it is wrong to use "have"+ing.

  • Thank you for your comment. I read "Advanced rules for shortening relative clauses with a participle" but still feel that "having" is correct when it can be used instead of "with". I would even prefer "having". In the British Companies Act it is widely used, e.g. 630.Variation of class rights: companies having a share capital. 631.Variation of class rights: companies without a share capital. – Anngie Jun 23 '17 at 6:34

In terms of antonyms, "with" and "without" permit parallelism. "People with money _ whereas people without money _."

But you can create parallelism in other ways.

"People who have money _ whereas people who don't [have money] _."

I believe that "People having money" is grammatically correct, but it does sound a little odd to me. I cannot articulate a reason for my feeling that way, but, as a matter of personal style, I'd probably go with "who have."

| improve this answer | |

Isn't it the same? Having money, with money and who have money - they express exactly the same thing and I can't see any rational reason why 'having money' should be any less correct than the rest.

| improve this answer | |
  • Tansy I agreed that the "having" formulation is grammatically correct and that parsing it results in the same meaning. It just sounds strange in my ears. Perhaps the reason is that after "having" I am expecting a past participle rather than a noun so there is a little jolt in the reading. In my opinion, this is a question of style and nothing more. – Jeff Morrow Jun 23 '17 at 20:57

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