be verb as a complement in passive causative?

Exp

Senior Member
Japanese
Can you have a be verb as a complement (bare infinitive complement) in front of the past particle in passive causative construction (subject + causative verb + object + past participle)?

Ex. Have him dismissed. → Have him be dismissed.

Venice Haggadah
[T]he Israelites refrained from conjugal relations so as not to bring children into the world only to have them be drowned by Pharaoh's men.

http://election.princeton.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/for.2010.8.3.1394.pdf
[A] party had to have the requisite percent of seats in one “trial” to have them be declared in control of the redistricting process for that chamber.

CNN.com
One technique is to not have them be interrogated by the CIA or the U.S. military, but to let the foreign intelligence service in, say, Egypt, conduct the interrogation.

(949)328–4377 is 949-FATHERS FAMILY LAW LAWYERS, DIVORCE ATTORNEYS, FATHERS RIGHTS FOR ORANGE COUNTY
It wouldn't be right for either spouse to devote themselves to raising the children of the union only to have them be divorced by the other spouse and not receive compensation.
 
  • Hermione Golightly

    Senior Member
    British English
    I notice the sources are all American. Using 'be' sounds very strange to me, a BrE speaker.
    In the last, I'd say 'only to be divorced' not 'have them be divorced'.
     

    Exp

    Senior Member
    Japanese
    I notice the sources are all American. Using 'be' sounds very strange to me, a BrE speaker.
    In the last, I'd say 'only to be divorced' not 'have them be divorced'.
    Do they sound utterly strange, both colloquially and grammatically, or could they be strange in the sense that they are arcane and rarely used today if not hundreds of years ago?
     

    Hermione Golightly

    Senior Member
    British English
    It seems that you know more than me about how 'arcane' this structure might be. I can only say that it looks wrong and unnecessarily wordy as if two different structures had been muddled. I'm looking forward to hearing what our American friends make of it.

    Causative Form (Active and Passive Causative) » SuparNgeBLog

    This UK site seems to confirm my thoughts.


    [T]he Israelites refrained from conjugal relations so as not to bring children into the world only to have them be drowned by Pharaoh's men.

    ... only for them to be drowned... (or .... only to have them drowned. But is that ambiguous in the same way the bottom example would be? I mean they are not going to arrange for the children to be drowned!:eek:)


    A] party had to have the requisite percent of seats in one “trial” to have them be declared in control of the redistricting process for that chamber.
    ... to be declared in control ...

    CNN.com
    One technique is to not have them be interrogated by the CIA or the U.S. military, but to let the foreign intelligence service in, say, Egypt, conduct the interrogation.


    One technique is for them to be interrrogated not by the CIA ..., but by the foreign intelligence service .... or ... to have them interrogated

    (949)328–4377 is 949-FATHERS FAMILY LAW LAWYERS, DIVORCE ATTORNEYS, FATHERS RIGHTS FOR ORANGE COUNTY
    It wouldn't be right for either spouse to devote themselves to raising the children of the union only to have them be divorced by the other spouse and not receive compensation.

    ... only for them to be divorced by... No alternative here because it would sound as if somebody was making them divorce.
     

    RedwoodGrove

    Senior Member
    English, USA
    I would hope a lawyer would feel the need to strive for greater clarity:
    It wouldn't be right for either spouse to devote him- or herself to raising the children of the union only to have that spouse be divorced by the other spouse and not receive compensation.

    That works for me grammatically, but it is not specifying that someone is having the divorce done.

    Hermione's solution is more efficient.

    In all your other examples I think you can drop the "be", though using it is proper as well.
     

    Andygc

    Senior Member
    British English
    Like Hermione, I find this use of the bare infinitive decidedly odd. I think it can be considered wrong, or at least very poor indeed, in modern BE.
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top