The committee representatives are reported to have said that the new district is for all communities and that a district could not be formed on community lines.
I wanna know where to use TO HAVE as used in above sentence.
=======================================================
‘To have’ is perfective infinitive in the active voice referring to the past.
e.g. You are expected to have read the instructions before taking an examination.
(We expect that you have read the instructions before taking an examination)
e.g. When I returned after an hour I found every visitor to have left the place.
(When I returned after an hour I found that every visitor had left the place)
e.g. The manager is understood to have recommended my application for the loan.
(I understand that the manager has recommended my application for the loan)
I will explain it by providing 2 examples.
- She is was spotted to have said cruel things. (meaning: she said cruel things, someone noticed that she said cruel things)
- I was waiting to have this problem solved. (meaning: I was waiting until someone solves this problem)
In simple words, “to have” is some sort of link between one part of a sentence and the other. It can be used in many ways depening on the sentence type and context.
I hope I made it clear - I’m still a student, so please correct me if necessary.
thnx to both
The constitution 65th Amendment Bill brought by the then Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi, sought to ensure municipal bodies being vested with necessary powers and removing their financial constraints to enable them to function effectively as units of local government.
In above sentence being is used but in my opinion in place of being ’ were being’ should be used. if yes then what is the difference of using being and were being in above sentence. if not then why?
[color=red]No. If you want to use ‘were being’, the sentence should read like this: The Constitution’s 65th … sought to ensure that municipal bodies were being vested (better still is ‘were vested’) with … local government.
The sentence would have read better, if it had been drafted as shown below:
The Constitution’s 65th Amendment Bill introduced by the then Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi, sought to ensure municipal bodies being vested with necessary powers and their financial constraints being removed so as to enable them to function effectively as units of local government.
[color=green]NOTE: Instead of a clause a participial phrase (in the passive voice) has been used, maybe, for brevity. The structural difference between these two is that a clause will always have a finite verb while a participial a non-finite verb. Here ‘being used’ is non-finite and ‘were being used’ finite.
The argument being that parliament is supreme.
in what way being is used in above sentence.
is it grammatical correct
It is grammatically correct.
The argument given here / which is the case / in existence is that parliament is supreme.
Already John Boehner, the speaker of house, was said to have denounced bill a day after it passed the Senate, saying it posed a “very severe risk” of starting a trade war between the world’s two biggest economies.
In place of “to have denounced” can we use “to denounce”
‘to have denounced’ is correct because it was done in the past.
Dear Omprakash,
The ‘to have denounced’ phrase refers to the past while the ‘to denounce’ phrase refers to the future. So, it is not appropriate to use the latter as the activity of denouncing has happened already.
By the way, where did you get this sentence from? It, in my view, has other errors, too. It should have been ‘the House’, the bill’, ‘was passed’ and ‘by the Senate’.
I would like the language coaches to examine my opinion.
You are right, T H Lawrence.
I would also change ‘the world’s two biggest economies’ to ‘the two biggest world economies’.
Thank you, BEV. Call me just ‘Lawrence’.
This is taken from The Hindu news paper, dated Oct 13,2011.
It is from topic that The US senate passed the bill to punish China.
I got it.
But does it also indicate that bill has been denounced or not? I mean it was just suggestion or denouncement of bill is completed.
That particular person denounced it.
I don’t know what you mean by ‘is the denouncement of the bill complete?’ I wonder if you are clear about the meaning of ‘denounced’.
It does not mean the bill has been revoked by any legislation, it only gives that particular politician’s opinion of the bill.
Surely, you have not quoted the text correctly, Omprakash. If you have, I am afraid, the reporter is not good at the English language or the proofreading was not properly done. Either way, and as Beeesneees says, the idea is not clear, particularly with regard to the word ‘denounce’. Anyhow, if you have seen the news on the web, please give us the link. Otherwise you may check the newspaper itself for the accuracy and exactness of the extract you have produced before us. Please quote it verbatim. Thank you.
Complete article is written below
News Paper The Hindu dated 14th oct 2011
article name: Senate bill to punish China for undervalued Currency
In a move that may cause an unprecedented disruption to the delicate balance of trade negotiations between the U.S.and China, the U.S. Senate has passed a bill aimed at punishing China for allegedly manipulating its currency and holding it at an artificially low level.
Bill 1619, known as the “Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Reform Act of 2011,” passed by a majority of 63-35 in the Democrat-controlled Senate but it faces stiff opposition in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives and also from the White House.
Already John Boehner, the Speaker of the House, was said to have denounced the bill a day after it passed the Senate, saying it posed a “very severe risk” of starting a trade war between the world’s two biggest economies.
Under the bill’s proposals the administration would be required to identify “fundamentally misaligned currencies” on a semi-annual basis. As a preliminary step, the bill would task the Secretary of the U.S. Treasury to seek to consult bilaterally with “the country that issues such currency in order to facilitate the adoption of appropriate policies to address the fundamental misalignment.”
If the misalignment were not corrected at that point the bill would then start introducing penalties, initially via multilateral platforms including the International Monetary Fund and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation.
In the case of what the Senate bill describes as “persistent failure to adopt appropriate policies,” that is, if there was no remedial action taken 360 days after the currency in question was identified as misaligned, Congress would then authorise the administration to take action at the World Trade Organization.
It would also permit the U.S. government to directly attack the price misalignment in the export sector by adjusting the calculation of the export price under the U.S.’ current antidumping laws, a move towards subsidies and trade protectionism that some warned could spark off a wider trade war with China.
While China was nowhere named directly in the bill, a bitter brew of contention between China and the U.S. over the currency issue has been simmering for several years now.
Responding to the passage of the Senate bill Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu said in a written statement, “China calls on the U.S. government, its Congress and various communities to oppose the pressure put on the RMB exchange rate by domestic legislation and to tackle trade protectionism.”
Turning the Senate’s argument on its head Mr. Ma argued that the U.S. Senate was “essentially practicing trade protectionism by making an accusation of currency manipulation… which is a serious violation of the rules of the World Trade Organization,” a sentiment also echoed by China’s Commerce Ministry Spokesman.
or you can search on google by writing the article name . You can see the hindu site there u can get article.
“Already John Boehner, the Speaker of the House, was said to have denounced the bill a day after [color=darkred]it passed the Senate, saying it posed a “very severe risk” of starting a trade war between the world’s two biggest economies”.
The grave error lies in the phrase marked in red. Of course the newspaper is responsible. There is no point in discussing this further. Nevertheless, your efforts to reproduce the entire text are appreciable.
[Whether it is becoming of the Speaker to ‘denounce’ a bill already passed is another legislative question].
I don’t see any problem with this – either with the use of “denounced” or with the phrase “it passed the Senate”.