Have and Had usage?

Question

Why “have and had” is used simaltaneously?

For Example
1 “I have had a Pen."
What does it mean, whether it shows that I had in the past if it is the object then what is the logic to use have?

2"I had had a Pen" What does it mean why "had" is used twice?
“He does not get paid” shouldn’t this sentence be
“He is not get paid”

Answer 1

Your confusion is understandable - it just has to do with the fact that the original verb in your sentence is have, and "have" also happens to be the helping verb in past perfect word constructions. If the original verb had been "own" rather than "have", it might have made more sense to you.

I have owned a pen (I owned it in the past, and still do)
I had owned a pen (I owned it in the past, but not anymore)

I have had a pen (I had it in the past, and still have it)
I had had a pen (I had it in the past, but not anymore)

The previous poster is on the right track, but "have had" and "had had" are not participles. They are the present perfect and the past perfect tenses, and "will have had" is the future perfect. A participle is a verbal adjective (running water). A gerund is a verbal noun (Running makes me tired).

Answer 2

"I have had a pen" means you had a pen at some point in your life, but you don't have one now (same as if someone asks if you have a dog- you might answer "I have had a dog," as in you used to have one but you don't have one now.

"I had had a pen" indicates a past condition that has now changed. Think about "I had wanted a dog." It means that you used to want a dog at some point, but then changed your mind sometime before now. It would be used if you are already speaking or writing in the past tense: "I had wanted a dog, but then I found out how much work it would be and I changed my mind." So, your sentence may continue on something like this: "I had had a pen, and I lost it, but then I found it again." The whole sentence tells about what has already happened (in the past), but the "had had" part shows that having the pen happened longer ago than the losing and then finding it again.

That's the best way I know how to explain it. Hope this helps.

Oh- "He is not get paid" doesn't make any sense. You would say "He is not getting paid." "He does not get paid" is also correct.

Answer 3

The problem with have is that it is a regular verb which is also used as a helping verb as in the cases of the perfect tenses. "Had" is the past participle form of "have" so the present perfect tense of the verb "have" would be "have had" and the past perfect tense of "have" would be "had had." Compare "I have eaten" with "I have had." Same helping verb "have" used with the past participle of different verbs. This is not easy if you don't have a good background in grammar but I thought I'd try to explain anyway.

Answer 4

I agree with Banjuja58's description.
1. is a past tense statement using a Present Participle.
Without the Present Participle 'Have', the sentence only describes the past. But with 'Have', I am now describing my present situation resulting from past events.
2. is a past tense statement using a Past Participle. Without the past participle 'Had', I can only describe the past at one point in time. With 'Had', I can now describe my past situation resulting from even earlier events.
But, there is also:
3. a past tense statement using a Future Participle. By adding the future participle 'Will Have', I can describe my future situation resulting from events that occur before my future situation.
"I will have had a pen."

Answer 5

1) Would usually include a length of time, e.g. "I have had a pen for three days." Thus it means I had a pen in the past and I still have it. "I had a pen" suggests that I no longer have the pen.

Answer 6

well for 2 "He is not get" makes absolutely no sense. That's just terrible grammar right there.

Answer 7

None of your examples are grammatically correct or make any sense. I am confused.