It sounds like a French construction that way. Compare:
La vache qui rit = The Laughing Cow
where la vache qui rit literally is constructed “the cow that laughs.”
These sentences do have different meanings to me. The second one says you like certain men – those who dance the lambada (whether or not they are dacing so right now). The first sentence implies you like men while they are dancing the lambada.
I must confess, I’m having some doubts about your claim that one would never use ‘to have’ in that tense.
As to the OP, I think Frylock is on the right track. There’s a difference between ‘men dancing the lambada’ (right now), and ‘men who dance the lambada’ (in general, at different times). The former implies something happening at the moment, but possibly changing in the future, while the second implies unchanging characteristics. If you see no difference, consider “People eating food have trouble speaking clearly.” vs “People who eat food have trouble speaking clearly.”
Because a books’ plot does not change, it is more appropriate (to most English speakers) to use the ‘have’ tense rather than the ‘having’ tense.
English grammar in general is of course partly logical rules, partly esthetic values unrelated to logic, and partly tradition and arbitrary convention, but in this case I think we can hazard at least a semi-logical answer.
You must be having me on.
Seems I was mistaken. Reexamining the two statements, yes, they are different to me also, in the same way they differ for you.
About the ~ing thing: My favorite distinction is from Indian Engish:
I am on my way. = I will be there when I get around to it.
I am being on my way. = I am actually in motion and will be there promptly.
Nuh-uh. That’s not using “have” in the sense of possession; it’s an idiom, a phrasal verb synonymous with “joking”. That’s why I can say “I’m having dinner”: because “having” in that sense is synonymous with “eating”: it has nothing to do with ownership. “We only have left-overs in the fridge, so I think we’re having bubble and squeak tonight.”
I can think of an exception. “I am having a bad day.” In this example though, have doesn’t mean possess. It roughly means experience. Try to think of an example where possessing would be used. I can’t, except for, “The spirit is possessing a person’s body,” which is, again, another meaning. I think Scissorjack is correct about the action verb thing. There are some verbs (when used with certain meanings, at least) that we simply don’t use in progressive form, and therefore don’t use as present participles to form adjectival phrases.
Its use is against the common idiom. You could say it’s idiomatically wrong and would not be said by someone fluent in English or by a native speaker.
Wow - I had no idea this thread was still alive.
I wish I had my grammar book with me - I taught a damn lesson on this whole thing last summer - but alas, I am in Chicago, the book is in Seoul and meanwhile I can’t even remember the publisher of said book.
There IS a rule that the present progressive is usually used with action verbs (and some verbs, like “have,” can be both action and non-action verbs depending on their meaning). For example:
I like men that dance the lambada.
I like men dancing the lambada.
Here, the verb tense changes the meaning of the sentence (as has already been pointed out above by other posters.) I like men who know how to dance the lambada VS I like men when they are dancing the lambada. Because “dance” is an action verb, the simple present and the present progressive can mean two different things (a constant truth VS a current event).
However:
I like books that have good plots.
I like books having good plots. (X)
Again, “have” as a possessive isn’t used in the present progressive form, because there’s no need to draw a line between “have” as a constant and “have” as a current event. Of course, when “have” is used to mean other things (like having a fit, having a cup of coffee, having a whore) it becomes an action verb and therefore can be expressed in the present progressive.
What about “Those having three or more items must go to the line on the left”?
-FrL-
See Post 14.
HazelNutCoffee said “have” is not used in the progressive present. I pointed out an example where it is. In post 14, you offer a hypothesis as to why it’s okay to use the present progressive in the case I point out. What am I missing that would allow me to follow your point?
-FrL-
To summarize the connundrum, we are wondering why the sentence:
“I like books having good plots.”
seems ungrammatical, while:
“Those having three or more items must go to the line on the left.”
does not. The explanation that “have” is an action verb in the second sentence but is not an action verb in the first is rather weak, since both sentences seem to imply the same possesive meaning for “having”.
I’m going to suggest the position of the participial phrase is important; consider the following sentence:
“The line on the left serves those having three or more items.”
That sounds ungrammatical to me.
To summarize the connundrum, we are wondering why the sentence:
“I like books having good plots.”
seems ungrammatical, while:
“Those having three or more items must go to the line on the left.”
does not. The explanation that “have” is an action verb in the second sentence but is not an action verb in the first is rather weak, since both sentences seem to imply the same possesive meaning for “having”.
I’m going to suggest the position of the participial phrase is important; consider the following sentence:
“The line on the left serves those having three or more items.”
That sounds ungrammatical to me. I think this is because such an order could be ambiguous, e.g. “The cashier on the left serves customers having a good time.”; is it the cashier or the customers having a good time?
Frylock, this explains it as succinctly as I can. Try it with another verb which is not usually used progressively: I wouldn’t say “I am seeing her”, but if it’s followed by another action and the phrase “seeing her” explains the reason for the second action, I can say “Seeing her, I walked over to say something.”
Yeah, I already understood your explanation of the usage. I’m saying I don’t understand why you’re giving it to me.
More precisely: I understood why you gave me that explanation the first time, in post 14. I don’t understand why you referred me back to post 14 later on, though. I do not see the relevance of post 14 to my pointing out that this usage looks like a counterexample to HazelNutCoffee’s claim that “have” is never used in the present progressive.
I’m pointing out the usage exists, and seems to work as a counterexample to a rule someone gave. You are telling me the circumstances under which the usage can be employed. Fine, but that has nothing to do with whether the usage is a counterexample to the rule I was talking about, so I’m not sure why you’re reminding me about your explanation.
-FrL-
The printed lyrics to “Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite” by the Beatles go
Having been some days in preparation
But what John Lennon is actually heard singing goes:
Being been some days in preparation
Maybe he’d had an aversion to present-participial “have” also.
I’m sorry, Frylock, but I can’t explain it further than I already have: as I pointed out earlier, not using “have” in the present progressive is a broad guideline for accepted Standard usage rather than a hard and fast rule, and there are exceptions {some of which have been discussed, for example using “having” idiomatically or as a phrasal verb} and you correctly pinpointed one of those exceptions, but there’s yet another rule/guideline which does account for your exception.
You’ve explained it perfectly clearly. I just don’t see how its relevant to provide a rule or guideline accounting for my exception. I did not claim there was no such rule or guideline. I was just saying HazelNutCoffee’s rule was incorrect. I was already aware you had provided a rule accounting for the usage I pointed out, and I did not need to be told about it again. What would have made sense to me would have been if you had directed HazelNutCoffee to your post 14.
-FrL-
I’m sorry. I now realized that the rule I cited does have exceptions when it comes to relative clauses. (I will still maintain that it isn’t “wrong,” just that I only remembered part of it.)
I just hope I remembered it correctly while I was actually teaching it in the classroom.