has had republished his excellent book

If he had sent it off to the publisher before he was killed, or if those responsible for his estate had sent it to the publishers after his death, it is perfectly acceptable to say that he had had his book published. That was his intent, and that was the effect, whether or not he was living when the purpose was accomplished. Writers don't publish books, they have them published by agreement with a publishing company.

his book is republished, so whether hes dead or not is immaterial . I wonder whether a comma after "republished" could make it clearer and not so ,almost, run-on.

Thank you~

But in English, when a person is dead, shouldn't we change the tense to the corresponding past tense?

bump

I guess Setanta and Farmer have fled the scene.



This structure, "has/have STH done" is a semi-passive, as is "get STH done".

And also "has/have SB do STH" and "get SB to do STH'.

We often use these to describe things we arrange to have done for us by outside help, experts in their field, etc.

I'm going to have/get my car fixed on Friday.

She has her hair done every week.

They never cook. They have their meals prepared for them.

The subject often arranges these various situations but the subject does not have to do the arranging. Though it's easy to assume that the Subject of the sentence also did the arranging, that's not necessarily true. It can be another party who made the arrangements.

I'm going to have/get my car fixed on Friday. My wife made the arrangements.

She has her hair done every week. Her personal secretary arranges it.

They never cook. They have their meals prepared for them. Their personal secretary arranges it.


Setanta described such a situation. The family, the executor of the estate, even the publisher could be the unspoken agent who arranged the republishing of the book.

The more common form, "S has had his book republished" has been inverted, likely for stylistic reasons.

"... that clever young writer killed in the War, has had republished, [by some unspoken agent] his excellent book on Mt Athos ... ."

[quote]But in English, when a person is dead, shouldn't we change the tense to the corresponding past tense?[/quote]

I really really hate these silly prescriptions. [Not blaming you, WB.] Like modals have tense!! Dumb, dumb, dumb!

They have made it much much harder for ESLs to become competent in what they are striving for, competency in English.

Again, CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT, then CONTEXT, and finally, CONTEXT.

Of course, it's only common sense that many, most [???] of the things that we talk of about living people using the PrP are denied to us when a person dies.

He has told me ... /He has eaten a large pizza by himself.

The reason for that is, the PrP carries within it a very very very strong sense of UP TO NOW. It's hard for a dead person to do UP TO NOW.

But there are still some situations where a dead person can be included in events/situations that continue to the present.

This present situation is one example, where it is possible that the dead young man personally arranged to have his book republished after his death.

Some people continue to have a large influence after their deaths.

He/She has/They have played a larger role, have had a greater influence in their community after his/her/their death(s) than before.

EDITED AND REPOSTED - to get rid of all the underlined.

===============================




This structure, "has/have STH done" is a semi-passive, as is "get STH done".

And also "has/have SB do STH" and "get SB to do STH'.

We often use these to describe things we arrange to have done for us by outside help, experts in their field, etc.

I'm going to have/get my car fixed on Friday.

She has her hair done every week.

They never cook. They have their meals prepared for them.

The subject often arranges these various situations but the subject does not have to do the arranging. Though it's easy to assume that the Subject of the sentence also did the arranging, that's not necessarily true. It can be another party who made the arrangements.

I'm going to have/get my car fixed on Friday. My wife made the arrangements.

She has her hair done every week. Her personal secretary arranges it.

They never cook. They have their meals prepared for them. Their personal secretary arranges it.


Setanta described such a situation. The family, the executor of the estate, even the publisher could be the unspoken agent who arranged the republishing of the book.

The more common form, "S has had his book republished" has been inverted, likely for stylistic reasons.

"... that clever young writer killed in the War, has had republished, [by some unspoken agent] his excellent book on Mt Athos ... ."



I really really hate these silly prescriptions. [Not blaming you, WB.] Like modals have tense!! Dumb, dumb, dumb!

They have made it much much harder for ESLs to become competent in what they are striving for, competency in English.

Again, CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT, then CONTEXT, and finally, CONTEXT.

Of course, it's only common sense that many, most [???] of the things that we talk of about living people using the PrP are denied to us when a person dies.

He has told me ... /He has eaten a large pizza by himself.

The reason for that is, the PrP carries within it a very very very strong sense of UP TO NOW. It's hard for a dead person to do UP TO NOW.

But there are still some situations where a dead person can be included in events/situations that continue to the present.

This present situation is one example, where it is possible that the dead young man personally arranged to have his book republished after his death.

Some people continue to have a large influence after their deaths.

He/She has/They have played a larger role, have had a greater influence in their community after his/her/their death(s) than before.

Thank you, JTT. I'll try to come up with some examples for questions.

Situation - Now a paper, recently published, reporting on a crime, involving the murderer known as JF, says:

-JF, the deceased murderer/prisoner, hails from St Petersburg.

The person is dead, and, hailing from where being immaterial, must HAILS be changed to HAILED? Is HAILS bad journalese and HAILED normal English?

Again, CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT, then CONTEXT, and finally, CONTEXT.

But isn't the situation already very clear? We know whether he is dead; his identity, etc.

The surrounding text could be very important. That's why grammar books fail so often picking isolated sentences.

I thought lugging a colossal passage up here might be too onerous for you.

If it's OK, next time I post a large part of the story~

Newspapers often use the present simple to report the news. Check your Swan, WB.

I think the original question is a good one: "Hails from" does not work with a deceased person.
It is clumsy journalism, and an obvious mistake.

"240 headlines
...

Some of the short words are unusual in ordinary language (e.g. curb meaning 'restrict' or 'restriction'), and some are used in special senses which they do not often have in ordinary language ... . Other words are chosen not because they are short, but because they sound dramatic ... ."

Swan page 212 Section 240.3

That's an interesting point: to have something done.
It may be illustrated by means of further examples:

"Have that woman washed and brought to my tent."
After he was shot, he had his gold teeth removed by persons unknown.
He had his funeral in his home town.

...and so on. It suggests involvement of a third party (or other people), without specifying all the details.