Hello every one;
I really don’t know what sequence of time I should maintain with ‘Perfect Gerund’.
For instance in this following sentece is this correct to use simple past or shall we stick to presnet and future?
“Having been convicted of the crime, he will flee to to Ecuador/ flees to Ecuador/ [color=red]he fled to Ecuador/he has fled to Equador.”
I would refer to it as a Present Participle Perfect which is used to describe an action which preceded another action by the same doer. Using its active form, you could say, “Having convicted him… the authorities prevented him (from) flleing…”
As we’re dealing with Passive (used to describe a state not action), your original sentence should read, “Having been convicted of the crime, he fled…”
In ordinary speech you could simply say: “After he was convicted/as he was convicted… he fled…”
There are two aspects to your question:
You can tell that it is the Perfect form of the Past Participle because it tells you the reason for the action that follows:
[color=indigo]Having felt an earthquake tremor, we evacuated the building.
Why did we evacuate? Because we felt a tremor that might signal an earthquake.
[color=indigo]Having seen the accident ahead, we stopped our car.
Why did we stop? Because there was an accident crash scene ahead.
Tenses:
Just as the Perfect Tense refers to an action/event before NOW (the moment of speaking), and ‘before NOW’ is therefore the Past, then the verbs used with the Perfect form of the Past Participle are always in the Past Tense.
The Perfect form of the gerund is formed in exactly the same way (e.g. having felt/having seen)…BUT…it introduces a phrase that, in its entirety, forms the subject of the sentence:
[color=indigo]Having been nominated for the award is an honour in itself.
Having seen one of the very few baby pandas in the world is a rare thrill.
Compare this to the Perfect form of the infinitive:
[color=indigo]To have been nominated for the award is an honour in itself.
To have seen one of the very few baby pandas in the world is a rare thrill.
Tenses:
The speaker decides whether the Present Tense, or Past Tense is appropriate. e.g. if still at the zoo, and talking with one of the zookeepers, then it makes sense to use the Present Tense.
If your visit to the zoo was in the past, then use the Past Tense: “…was a rare thrill.”
[color=indigo]Having been nominated for the award is/was [color=indigo]an honour in itself.
ADVICE: Avoid/don’t use the Perfect form of the gerund, and use the Perfect form of the infinitive instead.
The Perfect form of the gerund sounds odd, compared with the Perfect form of the infinitive; and we are so used to reading sentences with the Perfect form of the Past Participle, we expect an action to follow (as the result), so it takes the reader a moment to readjust – that this is not the Perfect form of the Past Participle, but actually the subject of the whole sentence, and so the Perfect form of the gerund!
NOTE:
This is quite different when comparing the gerund form (NOT the Perfect form of the gerund) and infinitive form. e.g.:
[color=indigo]Talking to you, I feel that my problems aren’t so big after all.
By talking to you, I always feel that my problems will be solved.
[color=indigo]Seeing you today brings back so many happy memories.
To see you is to remember all the good times.
Can you see that the gerund is used when talking about Specific instances, whilst the infinitive is used when talking about a General Rule?
All Bazza’s examples is correct with the use of -ing form. But I am wondering few questions below.(Sorry Lilish, my questions seem irrelevant to your topic)
Present participle and Gerund has raised many arguments between the grammarians for many years.
The way to distinguish between Present participle and Gerund is a fine line in many cases. Many grammar books refer them as -ing form.
Having felt an earthquake tremor, we evacuated the building. - For me, It’s a present participle phase rather a gerund.
Seeing you today brings back so many happy memories. - For me, It’s a gerund phase rather than present participle phase.
Wherever you can replace the -ing with another noun, It’s gerund. If it modifies a clause, It’s a present participle.
I’m not sure whether my understanding is correct, Hope some experts can shed some light on the whole matter. Thank you.
Thank you Bazza for the thorough explanation. Now I’m concerned with another aspect of ‘Perfect Gerund’ which is ‘Meaning’. Considering the two following sentences, I really can’t figure out the difference:
“He regrets not meeting her earlier in his life.”
“He regrets not having met her earlier in his life.”
To me both the above sentences are the same tense-wise.
You will be aware of the construction:
[color=indigo]If I had known, then I would have offered…
This can also be written as:
[color=indigo]Had I known, I would have offered…
Similarly, your sentence:
[color=red]“He regrets not meeting her earlier in his life.”
can be written:
[color=indigo]He regrets that he did not meet her earlier…
Note that, with ‘regrets’ being in the Present Tense, what he regrets must come before it, and so is in the Past Tense.
But what if the man died (and a friend is recalling his expressing this regret)? We cannot use the Present Tense, because a dead person doesn’t feel ‘regret’. So we use the Past Tense - it was a feeling the man once had when he was alive -…and so now, what he ‘regretted’ must be in the Past Perfect:
[color=indigo]He regretted that he had not met her earlier…
which can also be written
[color=indigo]He regretted not having met her earlier in his life.
That is - your sentence:
[color=red]“He regrets not having met her earlier in his life.”
is grammatically incorrect!
And so, “both the above sentences are the same, tense-wise” is not so.
And the difference in meaning boils down to whether the man is still living, or dead!
Bazza, can’t this sentence import this?: He regrets that he has not met her earlier in his life.
Compare: He regretted not having met her earlier in his life. (He regretted that he had not met her earlier in his life.
Preamble:
Look at these sentences:
(i) [color=indigo]“He met her.”
(ii) [color=indigo]“He regrets that he did not meet her earlier in life”
Pictorially, it is:
(i)……….|M|………NOW…
(ii)…|EM|<<<<………NOW….
where M =the point in time when they met
and EM = some earlier point in time of this wished-for meeting
Compare the above with:
We can say: (i) [color=indigo]“He has met her”
Pictorially:
………|M<….>……>….>.|NOW….
Where M = day of the meeting
and (ii) [color=indigo]“He has not met her.”
(ii)……|B<…has not met….>|NOW……
where B = day he was born!
Remember:
The Present Perfect Tense is anchored in NOW, the moment of speaking (and so, the present)…and looks back over a period of time…to a specified or unspecified starting point of this ‘period of time’.
But look what happens when we add those fatal words to modify the verb form:
(We cannot say): [color=brown]“He has met her earlier in his life.”
The words violate the function and meaning of the Present Perfect tense, because they disregard the focus on NOW; disregard the period of time since the established starting point; and instead, focus on shifting the starting point to an earlier time….which, as we saw in the preamble, is the function of Past Tense + time locators:
[color=indigo]“Previous records have indicated that they met in 1645, but this new evidence strongly suggests that they met earlier in his life than that.”
This kind of ‘violation’ is obvious if I try to write: [color=brown]“He will mow your lawn yesterday.”