Can all verbs function as adjectives in the form of a participle?
never mind
I have no fucking idea.
I think you need to clarify the question.
Auxiliary verbs do have a participle form, like being or having, but you cannot substitute them in phrases like the one **lissener ** used. They can be used in participial phrases, though.
This will be a running debate.
Even if they can’t be plugged into just any phrase, there are constructions where they may be adjectivals (non-adjectives being used as adjectives). There has been debate over whether they are participles or gerunds in those constructions.
For an obvious example, modal auxiliaries do not have a gerund-participle form and thus cannot function as adjectives. Compare:
a running debate
- a musting debate
- a shoulding debate
I don’t know anything about the previous discussion, so I don’t really know how to answer any other questions that might’ve sparked this thread. But the answer to the question, as asked, is a clear no.
Apart from those English verbs that have no participle form (like “can”, “may” and “shall”) , I’m having trouble thinking of how you could use “being” or “having” as an adjective. I’m not saying it would be totally wrong, just that any such usage would be pretty odd.
My mother owns many canning jars.
Ow, stop throwing things at me!
Be glad we’re just throwing cans at you. The jars could cause a lot more damage. 
Right – there are two verbs “can” in English (and also you can can can, if you are a dancer). The auxiliary verb meaning “be able to” has only two forms, “can” and “could”, has no infinitive “*to can”, and has no participles. The verb meaning to put food, etc., into tin cans is a completely regular verb – “can”, “he cans”, “canned”, “canning”.
The two verbs are unrelated. The first was in Old English; the second is a shortened form of the noun “cannister”.