I don't think it's wrong. Since you can say "Having had desert", I don't see why you can't say "Haven't having had desert", though I agree maybe it's not the most elegant or concise way to convey that.
Hmm, but can you say, "I have not have had dessert"? Since it uses all the same bits just in different ways? Because that DEFINITELY sounds redundant and wrong to me, whereas the OP's example is understandable at least.
No, I don't think that does work, but that's a different construction, which makes the second have redundant (and in a contradictory tense). Having had incorperates the progressive (and haven't having had is just a negation of that) so it has a slightly different meaning, and all the havings are doing something there.
How is "haven't having had" a negation of "having had"? What would "not having had" be, then, if not a negation? It anything, it's more than simply a negation.
Because it negates "having had"? As does "not having had"? I'd say they're both negations. I'm not saying one is more correct than the other here; I agree "not having had" sounds much better, I'm just saying I don't think haven't having had is actually violating any unviolatable rules.
Er, they both have negative components, to be sure, but for me have not having had is unquestionably bad because I can't put having in a slot after have. I'm with fencer_x: obviously the "haven't" is meant to carry negative force, but there's something extra there, and it's that extra bit that I think a lot of people intuitively object to.
It seems like you'd have to end up arguing that either this use of "having" is an NPI (since I assume you agree with me that "I have having had" and "you have having had" are bad) or that "haven't" is itself an indivisible negative, which seems difficult to support. I notice though from comments below that for some people haven't having been to the bank seems acceptable, whereas for me it's not, so there might be a regional thing at work here. Out of curiosity, is haven't having been to the bank fully interchangeable for you with not having been to the bank?
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
It seems like you'd have to end up arguing that either this use of "having" is an NPI (since I assume you agree with me that "I have having had" and "you have having had" are bad) or that "haven't" is itself an indivisible negative, which seems difficult to support. I notice though from comments below that for some people haven't having been to the bank seems acceptable, whereas for me it's not, so there might be a regional thing at work here. Out of curiosity, is haven't having been to the bank fully interchangeable for you with not having been to the bank?
Reply
Leave a comment