Re: Translation pattern of `to have'?
| From: | D Tse <exponent@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Friday, March 2, 2001, 7:40 |
|---|
> >
> > Mind you, I'm not saying I'd ever say "A dog is had by me", but it
> > doesn't sound much worse than "A dog is seen by me". Both are quite
> > awkward.
>
> "A dog is had by me" sounds grammatical to me--but only under an
> unintended
> (and, in this context, rather dirty) reading of "have".
>
> Matt.
Or with less depravity, "I've been had!" meaning I have been deceived :]
Generally "to be had" doesn't seem like a correct verb, semantically or
grammatically.
Reply