# The meaning of the verb "have".



## bepleased

1. That's the prayer of the sacrament at the end.----
"That they may always have his Spirit to be with them." 
---Could it be this way? 
About / Connected with / As regards / In regard to his Spirit to be with them, they may always *have(or have got) (or come up with).*

*Could you give your screening to me?*

*Thak so lot.*


----------



## JamesM

I'm not quite sure that I understand your wording.

I would read the original phrase is the completion of an idea, such as:

"We ask for God's blessing on X (so) that they may always have his Spirit to be with them."

What comes before this phrase in the liturgy?


----------



## bepleased

*Right, I show you the whole verse in Doctrine and Convenants 20:77*

*O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it, that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son and always remember him and keep his commandments which he has given them, that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.*


----------



## JamesM

Ah.  Thanks.  That helps a great deal.  It's basically a list of requests and desired results.  Here is how I would read it:

(Address) O God, the Eternal Father,
(petition) we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ,
(request) (we ask thee) to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake it
(request) (we ask thee) that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son,
(request) and witness unto thee that they are willing to:
 - Take upon them the name of they Son
- Always remember him
- Keep his commandments which he has given them
(result)
(so) that they may always have his Spirit to be with them.


----------



## bepleased

In my mind, here the 'have' means that they always have the need to deal with in the stated way 

So, the real subject is 'his Spirit to be with them' in which the action of always having got can be made.

And so as to their wish to having got is in response to 'his spirit to be with them'.
and the 'they' is not the real subject but the subordinate / to be subjected to that. 

That is my feeling. Telling me the real feeling in your mind.


----------



## bepleased

I show you my seeing:
(Address) O God, the Eternal Father,
(petition) (of me) we ask thee that is subjected to the name of thy Son,Jesus Christ
we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ,
(request) (we ask thee) (of me) as regard to the souls of those who partake of  it, unto blessing and sanctifying this bread 
 to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake it
(the promise in response to their request to God, not request again) with three 'that clauses' 
(request) (we ask thee) that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son,
(request) and witness unto thee that they are willing to:
- Take upon them the name of they Son
- Always remember him
- Keep his commandments which he has given them
(result)
(so) that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. 
that unto (they can always have got= it is the result as), to (his Spirit to be with them) 

thanks your telling.


----------



## panjandrum

O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, *
<petition>  *to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it, *
<followed by three reasons for the petition, or anticipated consequences of God's  granting the petition>
<1> that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, 
<2> that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son and always remember him and keep his commandments which he has given them, 
<3> that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. 
Amen.*


----------



## bepleased

Hi,

To "I have it", I wouldn't think of letting it in this way: "It is had by me".

Natives, would you tell me it's correct or wrong?

Thank for your help in clearing it up for me.


bepleased


----------



## ewie

Hi BP.  Yes, you're right: _It is had by me_ would sound utterly weird in 99.99% of utterances.

In fact, I can't think of *any* circumstances in which I would say that.


----------



## Forero

As a stand-alone sentence it does sound strange. Whether it is correct at all depends on context. Do you have a context in mind?


----------



## Aidanriley

Passive voice is looked down upon more often than not. If you have doubts, I'd opt for the active voice.


----------



## bepleased

Forero said:


> As a stand-alone sentence it does sound strange. Whether it is correct at all depends on context. Do you have a context in mind?


 
Hi, Forero,

Your feeling told me that it may have two ways to express the "have":
1. as the above in regualr way, 'have' is 'to keep or feel in the mind to 'it'', so , the 'it' is the reason for 'my having'
2. as the 'have' is 'to receive or obtain', and the 'it' becomes an intended aim or object towders which my action of 'have' directed;
so, passive voice can be used.

That is my feeling and an inspiration form you.

Would you like to talk abot it again or tell me the understanding is correct or not?


----------



## Aidanriley

bepleased said:


> Hi, Forero,
> 
> Your feeling told me that it may have *there may be* two ways to express the "have":
> 1. As the above*,* in* a regular* way*:* 'have' is 'to keep or feel in the mind to 'it'', so , the 'it' is the reason for 'my having'
> 2. As: 'to receive or obtain', and the 'it' becomes an intended aim or object *towards* which my action of 'have' *is* directed.
> So, *the* passive voice can be used.***
> 
> That is my feeling and an inspiration *from* you.
> 
> Would you like to talk *about* it again*,* or tell me *if* *my *understanding is correct or not?


 
***No, I really don't think it can, unless you're writing old poetry or something obscure.

This is the only sentence I can think of that your phrase can be used in, and I don't think it really counts since it idiomatically refers to giving birth.

I want a child, whether it is had by me, or by a surrogate.


----------



## bepleased

Aidanriley said:


> ***No, I really don't think it can, unless you're writing old poetry or something obscure.
> 
> This is the only sentence I can think of that your phrase can be used in, and I don't think it really counts since it idiomatically refers to giving birth.
> 
> *I want a child, whether it is had by me, or by a surrogate*.


 
Dear Aidanriley,

Thank your telling for me.

I have a great need for exploring the connotations and the real reason for its grammer in English.

In your lines, let me find the very important messages that the reason for its usage in exceptions is exactly of my feeling over it as means 'to obtain' not 'to feel in the mind' any more.

Is that right?

bepleased


----------



## bepleased

Hi,Aidanriley,
The following description is not to the point of the mind.
It should be changed into ....so, 'it' is the derivation of 'my having'

1. As the above*,* in* a regular* way*:* 'have' is 'to keep or feel in the mind to 'it'', so , the 'it' is the reason for 'my having' 

bepleased


----------



## Forero

_Have_ has lots of meanings. A few possible meanings of _have_ in passive voice:
_
A similar opinion was had by most of the group.  _[_had_ = "held"/"reached"]
_A good time was had by all. _ [_had_ = "experienced"]
_Each baby was had by a surrogate._  [_had_ = "carried and given birth to"]
_I got the best car that could be had._  [_had_ = "obtained"/"owned"]

But "had by me" would be unusual because the emphasis tends to seem misplaced:
_
That opinion was had by me. 
The fun was had by me. 
The child was had by me. 
The best car was had by me. 

_Context is needed to give meaning to _had_ as well as for proper emphasis. For example, in "a child, whether it is had by me or a surrogate", _child_ identifies _it_ and gives meaning to _had_, subordination with _whether_ serves to de-emphasize _had_, and the contrast between _me_ and _a surrogate_ puts clear emphasis on who does the "having".


----------



## bepleased

Hi,

Could any one remedy me?

1. He has a new car.

Can it say so? -----A new car is had by him.

2. The police asked me if I possessed a gun.

Can it say so?-----The police asked me if a gun was possesed by me.

Thanks in advance.


bepleased


----------



## entangledbank

No, neither of these verbs can be used in the passive, in their ordinary meanings.

One exception is the fixed phrase 'a good time was had by all' (= everyone had a good time, enjoyed themselves). Both verbs have special meanings that do allow passives:

You've been had. (= You've been tricked; someone has swindled or fooled you)
She was possessed by a demon / an evil spirit. (= A demon or spirit entered and took over her body.)


----------



## bepleased

Hi,

I would appreciate if any help can be offered in clearing up it for me.

1. He has never been possessed of mush sense.

Does 'to be possessed of' mean Much sense has never been given / added to him?

2. Just as the solutions of today will not fill the needs of tomorrow. Eternal truths will 
be neither true nor eternal unless they *have fresh meaning* for every new social 
situation，It is the function of education…
(Franklin D. Roosevelt).
Does "have" mean fresh meaning is given / added to them by 
human beings? 

3. the model is possessed of better applied value
Does "be possessed of "mean the model is given / added to the 
model by ... ?

Thanks in advance.

bepleased


----------



## bepleased

Hi,entangledbank,

Your lines seem to support me ?

The meanings of 'have'respectly belong to two groups,

one is have /have got ; another is to obtain / gain;

In one, the act of 'have' is in accordance with the object of the verb 'have', thus that objects are expected / 
experienced by the subjects, they are related to each other / the subject to have got as the subject to which
an action is done(the grammitical subject is not the real subject, it is the receiver of the act and not the doer of the act of have), , and of course the objects cnnot be used in passive voice that will misplace the meanings 
of invisiable holding / possession / meeting, as a way of  proverty / ability / experience ;

But in another, passsive voice can be made, such as :

"I want a child, whether it is had by me or (it is had by)surrogate代孕母"， because the holding / possession is

in physical way .


----------



## Driven

bepleased said:


> 1. He has never been possessed of mush sense. = He has never had much sense.  (It doesn't mean given to or added to, just that he has never had much sense. In other words, he has never been too smart.)
> 
> 2. Just as the solutions of today will not fill the needs of tomorrow. Eternal truths will
> be neither true nor eternal unless they *have fresh meaning* ( = mean something modern) for every new social
> situation，It is the function of education…
> (Franklin D. Roosevelt).
> Does "have" mean fresh meaning is given / added to them by
> human beings?  No.  They should just apply to different situations by meaning something modern.
> 
> 
> 3. the model is possessed of better applied value
> Does "be possessed of "mean the model is given / added to the
> model by ... ? Again, no.  It means to have.


----------



## bepleased

*Dear driven,*

1. He has never been possessed of mush sense. = He has never had much sense. (It doesn't mean given to or added to, just that he has never had much sense. In other words, he has never been too smart.) 

*I want to ask for you: He has had much sense. that usage of 'have' seems to He has been possessed by the devil. or just equal to 'have got'?*
** 
*If  it is , why not use 'of ' instead of 'by' ? *



*God tell me enternal truth to act for itself , not to be acted upon.*


*have fresh meaning*( = mean something modern)

*What did you mean whether they grow something modern in itself or are given / added unto by human beings?*
*This is the great question. *


3. the model is possessed of better applied value
Does "be possessed of "mean the model is given / added to the 
model by ... ? Again, no. It means to have. 

*And to have , did you mean 'to have got'?*


----------



## entangledbank

Your explanation is not very clear. There are numerous different uses of 'have'. As a general rule, none of them can be made passive:

I have a new car. I have three children. (possessive 'have')
A new car is had by me. Three children are had by me.

I had my kitchen painted green. (causative 'have')
My kitchen was had painted green by me.

various idioms with 'have':

My sister had a baby last month.
A baby was had by my sister last month.

The drivers had an argument about the accident.
An argument was had by the drivers about the accident.

The three friends had a pizza for dinner.
A pizza was had by the three friends for dinner.

I can think of one use where a passive is possible: when it means "get, obtain" and there is a modal verb before it.

Bargains can be had here on market days.
He wondered whether bargains could be had there.
Pretty seashells are to be had on this beach after a storm.
If you're lucky, a good pair of shoes might be had for as little as £20.
Bargains are had here on market days. (no modal verb)


----------



## bepleased

Dear my teacher entangledbank,
It is kind of you to tenderly guide me. 
Is only 'causative have' not allowed the use of passive voice, but causative 'make and leave' I have seen that they have a passive voice.
You give these valuable information, it will take me some time to digest what I have had.

for example:
1. There are certain reasons why this infromation cannot *be made* public.(causative make)
2. Owing to the electricity strike, a laot of factory workers *were left* idle.(causative leave)

You just tell me yes or no.

If there is a need, I might do a new thread.

bepleased


----------



## bepleased

Hi,

I would appreciate any help you can offer in clearing up for me.

The teaching of God on eternal truths provides me a strong reason for doing the question.

My question is *'have' *how to be interpreted, it is in the speech of Franklin D. Roosevelt

We how to do it in order to fit the teachings of God on eternal truths?



"just as the solutions of today will not fill the needs of tomorrow. Eternal truths will be neither true nor eternal unless *they have fresh meaning* for every new social situation, It is the function of education ... "(Franklin D. Roosevelt).

All truth is *independent* in that spare in which God has placed it,  *to act for itself*, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.
Behold, there is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man.
(Doctrine and Covenants of the Book of Mormon 93:30 )


----------



## fauxdefafa

I don't quite understand your question. What don't you understand exactly?


----------



## Cryohead

Unless they bear/possess/convey fresh meaning. That is how I understand it. Unless they manage to pass the test of time and still able to convey truths that are current and relevant?


----------



## bepleased

Hi,
God tell us the truth to act for itself and not to be acted upon.

In the speech of Franklin D. Roosevelt, he must in the teaching of God, 

but I don't know how to interpret the verb of 'have' in 'they have fresh meaning'.


----------



## fauxdefafa

The "truths" need to matter to each new generation, and possess a new aspect of the same truth to survive time. 
This does not conflict with the Book of Mormon, though I would remember the difference between "God" and a holy book.


----------



## bepleased

Hi, Cryohead,
The truths act for itself not service the things of human beings if not people would not have to promote / practice truths, and do not need access to education, because all things it to manage.


----------



## bepleased

The verb of 'have' how to interpret?


----------



## Loob

bepleased said:


> The verb of 'have' how to interpret?


See Cryohead's answer.

"Develop" or "be given" would work too.


----------



## bepleased

Loob said:


> See Cryohead's answer.
> 
> "Develop" or "be given" would work too.


 
Hi, Loob,

I would have a thought that the fresh meaning is done by people, the truths is still in itself.

Is that right?


----------



## fauxdefafa

The fresh meaning is still the same truth, just reinterpreted by, yes, people.


----------



## Cryohead

bepleased said:


> Hi, Cryohead,
> The truths act for itself not service the things of human beings if not people would not have to promote / practice truths, and do not need access to education, because all things it to manage.


 
Is it possible that you believe that "they" refers to individuals? In this sentence "they" refers to truths.

these truths = they (in this context)

unless *they have fresh meaning*  = unless *these truths have fresh meaning* 

Is that it?


----------



## bepleased

fauxdefafa said:


> The fresh meaning is still the same truth, just reinterpreted by, yes, people.


 
but the verb 'have', we how to interpret it?


----------



## bepleased

Cryohead said:


> Is it possible that you believe that "they" refers to individuals? In this sentence "they" refers to truths.
> 
> these truths = they (in this context)
> 
> unless *they have fresh meaning* = unless *these truths have fresh meaning*
> 
> Is that it?


 
Hi, I agree with you. that is right.

But I need for the interpretattion of 'have'


----------



## Loob

Bepleased, what is your difficulty with the various meanings for _have_ that we have given you?

There's no point in keeping on asking the same question if we don't understand what your problem is....


----------



## bepleased

Hi,

Could any one help me to clear up?

Is only 'causative have' not allowed for the use of passive voice? but causative 'make and leave' I have seen that they have a passive voice.

*This quesion from #23 pointed to me.
*
for example:
1. There are certain reasons why this infromation cannot *be made* public.(causative make)
2. Owing to the electricity strike, a laot of factory workers *were left* idle.(causative leave)

Thanks in advance.

bepleased


----------



## JamesM

"A good time was had by all" is a stock phrase that uses "was had".  In general, though, "was had" seems awkward to me.

"I was had!" means I was duped, fooled or taken advantage of.  It may be that this sense of "was had" makes other uses of it sound odd.


----------



## bepleased

JamesM said:


> "A good time was had by all" is a stock phrase that uses "was had". In general, though, "was had" seems awkward to me.
> 
> "I was had!" means I was duped, fooled or taken advantage of. It may be that this sense of "was had" makes other uses of it sound odd.


 
Hi, amesM,

Thank you for your loyal analysis of the world in your mind to it
I will follow your telling to understand it.


all the best 

bepleased


----------

