3

Can someone help?

"Dave killed Peter."

Dave asked Susan, "why was Peter here?"

Susan said, "Maybe he would have told you if you hadn't have killed him."

Would there have been any difference if she had said "Maybe he would have told you if you hadn't killed him"?

According to my understanding, Susan wants to emphasise the fact that Peter would have told Dave why he was here if Dave hadn't killed him first. Right? Meaning, Susan thinks Dave would still kill him anyway, before or after Peter told Dave why he was here.

herisson
  • 81,803
Clement
  • 31
  • 4
    The only difference is that *hadn't have is ungrammatical. – Anonym Nov 26 '15 at 19:12
  • Did you read or hear these sentences somewhere, or did you make them up? If they're not yours, where are they from? – herisson Nov 26 '15 at 23:54
  • This is a style that some people use. It is again a sort of rural, non-college-educated dialect that is spoken (by a minority of the population) in areas of the US Midwest. I've learned to essentially ignore the extra "have" in this case, as it serves no syntactical purpose. – Hot Licks Nov 27 '15 at 21:20
  • thanks guys, it was actually a dialog on a US drama i saw it on the subtitles. I will just ignore the HAVE from now on. – Clement Nov 30 '15 at 19:50

5 Answers5

3

In his book The Syntactic Phenomena of English, McCawley argues that in a position requiring a non-finite form, a past tense is shifted to perfect "have", and that multiple "have"s are shifted to just a single "have". According to this analysis, in your example "if you hadn't have killed him", there are 3 logical past tenses, "if you Past Past n't Past kill him", the second two get changed to "have": "if you Past have n't have killed him", then the multiple occurrences of "have" are reduced to just one: "if you Past have n't killed him". Then, with the realization of "Past have" as "had", we wind up with "if you hadn't killed him".

It's an interesting and rather intricate analysis. However that may be, in the standard dialect that McCawley describes, you can't wind up with the perfect of a perfect, because one of the two perfect "have"s is lost by an arbitrary adjustment, in order to fit the logic of constructions into the restrictive morphological system of English.

Greg Lee
  • 17,406
1

I think your understanding is correct.

I am not sure, but I think the phrase 'hadn't have' is equivalent (in this sentence) to 'hadn't' that I associate with some English dialects.

rivimey
  • 217
1

The original sentence does not follow grammatical rules.

Maybe he would have told you if you hadn't have killed him.

This sentence is presumably trying to use the past perfect tense, but includes an extra "have" which doesn't belong according to Washington State University.

WSU source

trident
  • 873
0

I don't really understand what you are asking.

There are several grammatical and punctuation errors in your question.

But there is essentially no difference between saying ...if you hadn't have killed him and ...if you hadn't killed him.

Both are grammatical.

The whole question of the validity of had have + past participle is excellently addressed in an answer by Shoe at this OP.

Community
  • 1
WS2
  • 64,657
  • 1
    The first one seems non-standard to me. Do you have a source that says that it is grammatical in standard language? – herisson Nov 27 '15 at 00:05
  • 1
    @sumelic "had not have killed him" certainly seems wrong, but I might not blink with "hadn't have," and "hadn't've" sounds fine. – Matt Samuel Nov 27 '15 at 04:25
  • @Matt Samuel Well if hadn't've sounds fine, what can possibly be wrong with had not have? There may be things over which there is room for disagreement and doubt - but I am a native speaker, and I can tell you that ...all would have been well if he had not have revealed his password is perfectly good English. – WS2 Nov 27 '15 at 07:47
  • @sumelic Do I have a source? Well I was born English and I have been speaking my own language for 71 years. – WS2 Nov 27 '15 at 07:51
  • 1
    I feel like some people may distinguish between "hadn't of" and "hadn't have." So I'm not totally sure it can be un-contracted like that. The usage certainly exists, but I feel like it is non-standard and also not very common. I think a good answer to this question needs more discussion than simply declaring both forms grammatical (or ungrammatical). – herisson Nov 27 '15 at 07:55
  • @sumelic The reason it may seem non-standard is because the quality and grammaticality of spoken and written English has been deteriorating for years. The expression hadn't of as in all would have been well if I hadn't of gone is illiterate - but sadly you do hear it used. – WS2 Nov 27 '15 at 08:01
  • 1
    To me, "hadn't have" seems like a version of the non-standard "hadn't of" that is corrected to have standard spelling, but not standard grammar. It's not clear to me if the "of" is fully equivalent to "have" in these kind of constructions. Here are some relevant Language Log posts: Wouldn't of have, and the comments to Language change in progress – us and our Red Sox buddies. Apparently it's mentioned in the CGEL; I haven't read the relevant chapter. – herisson Nov 27 '15 at 08:06
  • @sumelic I am not a person who accepts that, because enough people say something, that there is a case for describing it as 'standard English'. The attitude that there is a right way and a wrong way to speak English is something I learned at a young age, and will carry with me to the grave. – WS2 Nov 27 '15 at 08:31
  • 1
    I agree, broadly speaking. And what I'm saying is I think "hadn't have" is "wrong," even if you and many others say it. So I think you should explain a bit why it is right. (Native speaker intuitions about what is grammatical can vary by region.) – herisson Nov 27 '15 at 08:33
  • @sumelic Forget the negative for a moment. What would be wrong with If I had have known who the man was, I would have asked him? All I can say is that it sounds perfectly idiomatic to me. Eliminating the have, I would agree, says exactly the same thing. But I would certainly include have if I wanted to achieve emphasis. – WS2 Nov 27 '15 at 08:55
  • 1
    The thing that's wrong about it is that it isn't a normal perfect construction. Usually, the "have" in a perfect construction is always followed by a past particle: "I have eaten," "I have been running," "I have had him fired." But here, it's followed by the plain form "have." That's weird, and IMO deserves some explanation. – herisson Nov 27 '15 at 08:59
  • @sumelic But in If I had have known... - the have is followed by a past participle - known. – WS2 Nov 27 '15 at 09:08
  • @sumelic It may be no bad idea to start an OP on this. I can't see where it has been discussed in depth before on the site. – WS2 Nov 27 '15 at 09:11
  • 1
    The second "have" is followed by a past participle, but the first "had" is not (directly). – herisson Nov 27 '15 at 09:12
  • @sumelic I have to go out now. But perhaps I will start an OP on this that doesn't involve the negative. I feel sure people like John Lawler will have opinions on the matter. – WS2 Nov 27 '15 at 09:14
  • @sumelic Have you seen the excellent answer provided by Shoe under this OP? – WS2 Nov 27 '15 at 18:22
  • @sumelic I trust you will also up-vote Shoe's excellent answer. – WS2 Nov 27 '15 at 21:13
0

For example, Tennessee hilljilly/hillbilly talk or Texan country music, it don't respect no logical grammar if it ain't done nobody no harm.

They have a tendency to create ad hoc non-finite phrases where you normally can't or don't, which are effectively put to good idiomatic use.

In this case, the idiomatic pattern used in non-finite fashion is "have {action done}" - for examples, "have someone killed", "Have the kid put away for good."

Non-finite use is in effect when you put no effort into modifying its tenses or number, but use the phrase unmodified within a set of conversations regardless of the temporal context, the number, or gender of each sentence within the conversation.

  • The hills, they have their own justice. Likewise, she have her own justice. She's the moonshine queen of the hills, the judge, and leader of her jury.
  • She had someone have the kid put to rest for good. If she hadn't have the kid put away for good, he would've destroyed a good portion of her moonshine trails.
  • They have the crack of the dawn, and she have the crack of the dawn to give them.
  • They can have the highest noon even in the dead of the night, and she have the highest noon made every dead of the night.
  • Every moment, another bites her dust. More people bites her dust than she is happier that they bites her dust.

One of the questions motivating this kind of usage is

  • If we can say "She would {have breakfast}",
  • then, why should't we say "She had {have breakfast}" ?

Another question is - why shouldn't we be able to treat {have breakfast} as a non-finite expression?

  • {Have breakfast} is a morning ritual everyone should partake in.
    Rather than,
    {Having breakfast} is a morning ritual everyone should partake in.
  • Why not,
    {Have him killed} is in fact more merciful than {have him tortured}
    rather than,
    {Having him killed} is in fact more merciful than {having him tortured}
  • Why not {bites the dust}, rather than {biting the dust} as the non-finite expression?

Well, should I need to apologize on behalf of the historical development of the English language that active non-finite phrases use the continuous tense, and passive non-finite phrases use the completed tense.

Should I also need to apologize for the various modes of operation of auxiliary verbs that have developed within the English language, that dictate the degree of non-finite use they could accommodate?

  • copula use (is, are, be)
  • expectation (will, would)
  • proposition and imagination (shall, need)
  • etc
Blessed Geek
  • 9,623