Having+verb-ed?

by **Hei** Sun Apr 06, 2008 1:40 am

S1: Having verb-ed..., S+V+O.
S2: S+V+O having verb-ed...

Do both sentences show a sequence of events?

I have seem explanations in OG kind of contradicting each other.
Another one says, "in S1, Having verb-ed... suggests that S has finished the 'verb-ed' action before S does the 'V' action".
One says that S2 doesn't show a sequence of events.
So should I memorize that S1 shows a sequence of events but S2 doesn't? Or am I misunderstanding something?
Thanks in advance.

by **RonPurewal** Tue Apr 08, 2008 5:07 am

my initial instinct is to strongly dislike 'S2' as a general rule, because participial modifiers placed in that position usually describe a consequence of the action described in the main clause. see #71 in the yellow og, which i'm not allowed to reproduce here, for an illustration.

the issue is that 'having V-ed', by definition, describes a pre-existing condition, so i'm tempted to say that it's flat-out wrong in the given context.

have you seen any context in which the gmat condones this usage?

by **Hei** Wed Apr 09, 2008 9:19 pm

Hi Ron,

I have a pretty bad memory...as far as I can remember, I haven't seen any official GMAT question considering the above structures correct.

I thought that the participle modifier ("having verb-ed") in S2 could not describe a consequence *unless* there was a comma preceding it, am I wrong?

Do you consider that "describing a pre-existing condition" differ from "showing a sequence of events"?

Thanks in advance.

by **rfernandez** Thu Apr 10, 2008 6:23 pm

You're right, Hei, a comma would be necessary before the participial modifier, as in:

The lawyer slammed her briefcase on the table, making it clear to everyone that she was unhappy.

To your other point, I think "Having V-ed, S V O" clearly shows a sequence of events, specifically that the "having V-ed" event occurred before the V event.

Rey