+0
Are both correct/interchangeable? It is an excerpt from an obituary.

The original used the perfect participle, but I can't see why the perfect aspect is necessary, since the ing clause takes its tense from the tense in the main clause. 'He was regarded' occurs concurrently with 'being the author'.

"He was regarded as an outstanding teacher, being the author of over 80 publications."

"He was regarded as an outstanding teacher, having been the author of over 80 publications."

Thanks
Comments  
Of course the two clauses have absolutely nothing to do with each other logically. The author is struggling to connect diverse materials and obviously lacks experience.

Both are grammatical in my opinion, but hardly interchangeable.

It boils down to whether we should say "Shakespeare is the author of Macbeth," or "Shakespeare was the author of Macbeth."
Avangi
It boils down to whether we should say "Shakespeare is the author of Macbeth," or "Shakespeare was the author of Macbeth."


Doesn't it boil down to whether we should say "Shakespeare was the author of Macbeth," or "Shakespeare had been the author of Macbeth"?

The ing clause's tense comes from the main verb: the past simple or the past perfect.
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
I don't understand your point. Both main verbs are past simple.

Well, maybe you're right: He was dead, being devoid of life. The being is in the past.
English 1b3Are both correct/interchangeable?
I find both of them correct. Whether you consider them interchangeable depends on how picky you want to be.

Let's take this interpretation:

The first version makes the two clauses concurrent.
The second one makes them non-concurrent. Here the authorship occurs earlier in time than the main clause (because of the auxiliary having).

The general meanings are the same, for all practical purposes, and yet, if you're interested in a very close reading, where the subtlest nuances of meaning are important, you can't really claim that the two are interchangeable.
________________________

What I wrote above is enough to answer your questions, but here is a little more commentary.
English 1b3the ing clause takes its tense from the tense in the main clause.
I would take this with a grain of salt. In this specific case you can actually mentally place the being clause in the present and the having been clause in the past, paraphrasing them as:

He was ... (because) he is the author of ...
He was ... (because) he was the author of ...

This interpretation of the 'being / having been' contrast (or 'taking / having taken' or any other contrast of this type) has an analog in the world of the modals, which share with participles the property of having no past tense: must / must have; should / should have; etc. Palmer (The English Verb) calls such pairs contrasts of phase rather than contrasts of tense. I have never quite understood 'phase' except that it has to do with what the auxiliary have can do, namely, mimic the present/past contrast.

In this interpretation the first sentence does not backshift; the second one does. Here's an example that doesn't involve participles:

We learned that he is the author of ... [no backshift]

We learned that he was the author of ... [backshift]

It is always correct to backshift, but a decision not to backshift is possible when the clause expresses some timeless truth, and authorship belongs in that category.

Switching back to the participle example, being the author of ... suggests "no backshift"; having been the author of ... suggests "backshift". Native speakers usually feel more comfortable with the backshifted version of just about any combination you can imagine, so it's not hard to see why the writer of the obituary in question used having been -- even though beingwould also [be / have been] Emotion: smile correct.

CJ
Thanks, Jim. Emotion: smile Very clear and to the point.
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Thanks, Jim.

What I gather from your post, CJ, is that it's not that they are interchangeable, but rather that either can be correct, depending on how you argue your case, and on your interpretation.

Were we to follow the former interpretation you presented (and which I mentioned, somewhat less elegantly) 'being' is the technically correct version; however, were we to follow the latter interpretation-one with which I am/was totally unfamiliar-either is correct (depending on whether or not you wish to backshift).

You deserve a Emotion: beer for that. If it's not beer o'clock, at least accept my thumbs up, [Y]
I suspect this is yet another example in which either could be used?

I understand the importance of such relationships, after having worked/working in companies in which 80% of the customers were returning customers.

'after' indicates the working happened before the understanding, but the perfect participle can still be used to reinforce, or emphasize, that the working happened before the understanding, correct?