have -p.p.

1 2

Share on Facebook

Teleostomi

#457162 Wed, 26 Dec 07 12:30 PM

"There was no cockroach to have made her ill."

At first I thought "to have made her ill" allows for only the interpretation of "past participle" but could it also be taken as "present participle"?

Teleostomi

Joined on Sat, Jun 10 2006

Regular Member (557)

Avangi

#457194 Wed, 26 Dec 07 03:17 PM

Teleostomi wrote:

"There was no cockroach to have made her ill."

At first I thought "to have made her ill" allows for only the interpretation of "past participle" but could it also be taken as "present participle"?

I'll probably regret having jumped in here, but I don't think it's a participle. If you said, "to make her ill," I'd guess you'd call it something like a present infinitive phrase modifying "cockroach." In that sense, I'd call your example a past perfect infinitive, if there is such a thing. I hope someone has a better name for it.

Present participle might be, "It wasn't the cockroach making her ill." But that would be the same as, "The cockroach was not making her ill," (or "No cockroach was making her ill.") In this case the present participle just happens to be the verb form used in constructing that tense, (past progressive??) as it would be in, "The cockroach is not making her ill" (present progressive??).

Of course "made" is the past participle of "make," but it's used as part of the formula for making various verb tenses. Saying, " 'to have made her ill' is a 'past participle' " is sort of meaningless to me. It uses the past participle - not the present participle.

Avangi

Joined on Mon, Nov 19 2007

Senior Member (3,289)

". . . le plaisir delicieux et toujours nouveau d'une occupation inutile." - Henri de Regnier

Past perfect, Present progressive, Tenses, Verbs

CalifJim

#457245 Wed, 26 Dec 07 06:14 PM

A present participle always ends in -ing.
There is no word in your sentence that is a present participle.

CJ

CalifJim

Joined on Mon, Aug 2 2004

California

Veteran Member (16,978)

"There are no facts, only interpretations" - Nietzsche

Teleostomi

#457426 Thu, 27 Dec 07 08:10 AM

Thanks avangi and CJ, I was all confused!

I should have written like this:

"There was no cockroach to have made her ill."

At first I thought "to have made her ill" allows for only the interpretation of "past perfect infinitive" but could it also be taken as "present perfect infinitive", even though the main verb "was" is in the past tense?

Teleostomi

Past tenses, Present perfect, Tenses, Verbs

Avangi

#457549 Thu, 27 Dec 07 03:59 PM

Hi Teleostomi,

I'm in over my head here on infinitive tenses, if any there be. I'm going to try to look it up. Perhaps someone else will come by in the meantime.

But I have a feeling you may be right about the present perfect. The missing cockroach would have been in the past, while the time of the illness is unspecified. (Of course we're talking about the making of the illness.)

Thanks for your confidence, although it may be misplaced. - A.

Edit. So far I find "infinitive is tenseless" and "infinitive tenses in Latin!" Your example must have another analysis.

Okay, I found : If we wish to speak of something relating to a time prior to that
indicated in the past tense we must use the perfect tense of the
infinitive; as, "He appeared to have seen better days."

I believe if you say, "He appears to have seen better days," the infinitive phrase does not change. It simply means the action the phrase describes took place before the time of the main verb. So I think your instincts were good in suggesting that the same phrase could be used in both a present perfect and a past perfect situation.

It sounds like the cockroach would have been expected to hang aroung awhile. Otherwise you could say, "There was no cockroach to make her ill." But that could mean she didn't get ill. The illness seems to be implied by the perfect infinitive.