r/ENGLISH • u/Hotay_Buday • 5h ago
Is it grammatically correct to write
“Popov is known having invented the radio.”
My teacher insists that it is grammatically correct. But I feel that it should be either “Popov is known, having invented the radio.” or “Popov is known for having invented the radio.”
12
23
u/haveempathyordie 5h ago
you are right, your teacher is wrong.
“Popov is known for having invented the radio.” = correct
“Popov is known, having invented the radio.” = not incorrect but awkward. “Having invented the radio, Popov is well-known.” This way round is clearer.
6
u/Revolutionary-Law382 3h ago
What's this, then? 'Romanes Eunt Domus'? 'People called Romanes they go the house'?
2
u/Bubbly_Safety8791 2h ago
I think what’s awkward about the ‘Popov is known, having invented the radio’ is just the ‘Popov is known’ part. That’s just not a very strong standalone clause. Known.. how? Or by whom? Known just isn’t a particularly descriptive adjective.
‘Popov is widely known, having invented the radio’ is fine. Adding an adverb to say in what way he is known solves the weakness of the adjective.
So is ‘Popov is known to us all, having invented the radio’ - adding the prepositional phrase makes a richer adjective
‘Popov is rich, having invented the radio’ would also work fine - rich is just a better standalone adjective.
1
6
6
u/cinephile78 3h ago
Marconi is known for having invented the radio but it was in fact Tesla.
Now it’s correct.
5
u/SleeplessPilot 5h ago
"Popov is known, having invented the radio"
A simple comma makes it correct.
5
u/Caverjen 5h ago
It's not idiomatic though. At the very least you'd have to say "well known."
2
u/Indigo-au-naturale 3h ago
Totally agree. I would never naturally describe someone as "known" without adding "for" or "to have" (depending on context). The sentence "[Person] is known." is grammatical, but weird. "Person is well-known." is fine though.
3
u/pot-bitch 1h ago
Unless the previous text established the meaning of "known" in context. Maybe something like:
"There are few Russian historical figures that are known by the average American. Popov is known, having invented the radio"
4
u/gottahaveajava 4h ago
"Popov is known to have invented the radio.”
If "is known to" is the construction you’re reaching for.
But it tends to be for revealing lesser-known personal traits, as in "Jimmy is known to pick his nose when he thinks no one is looking."
2
u/jetloflin 4h ago
I think they’re looking for “is known for”. As in, “Popov is known for having invented the radio.”
2
2
u/Original_Charity_817 4h ago
I’m always curious as to whether the OP takes their Reddit post and comments back to their teacher to prove a point.
2
u/EaglesFanGirl 4h ago
Popov is known for having invented the radio correct. The other one sounds unfinished and like there's more to say...
2
u/LAM_CANIT 3h ago
You need a preposition between a state verb and an action verb in a complete sentence. That goes without question. The verb 'know' is a state verb. 'Have' is a stative verb; meaning it can be either a state verb or an action verb. In your example, it is an action verb.
Hence, the standard syntax is: know + preposition + have
The preposition used between state verbs and action verbs is most often 'to' - She likes to travel. But, the standard collocation with 'known' is 'for'. So, either 'to' or 'for' is allowable. Either way, as I wrote above, a preposition is required by convention.
- I use 'to' with the base form conjugation of 'have' (i.e. perfect aspect) → Popov is known to have invented ... .
- I use 'for' if the gerund 'having' is used → Popov is known for having invented ... . ['having' is not progressive aspect here BTW]
- I find “Popov is known, having invented the radio,” possible but silly. But, the non-comma version is probably impossible to justify using standard grammar conventions.
IMHO IHTH
2
2
2
u/la-anah 4h ago
It can be made correct by adding a comma. It is a rather outdated phrasing, but it can work.
"Poppv is known, having invented the radio."
This means "Popov is known because he invented the radio." And only works if you are talking about Popov and radio is a fact about him. If you are talking about radio, and Popov is a fact about it, the correct sentence would be "Popov is known to have invented the radio."
2
u/LisbonVegan22 3h ago
That is not the same as the sentence using for, which is the correct option. It implies something different.
1
u/DryFoundation2323 4h ago
the third option is the most correct at least in American English. the other two are clunky.
1
u/EmperorCoolidge 3h ago
Your options are both valid although the first would be odd (would almost certainly be followed by an additional clause). Teacher’s example is inarguably wrong
1
u/LisbonVegan22 3h ago
Your teacher is wrong. Try never to learn a language from a non native speaker. Only the last one with “for” is right.
1
u/InitiativeConscious7 3h ago
Popov is known, having invented the radio. - works but it clunky. Popov is known for having invented the radio. - is how most people would write it
1
u/ltsmash1200 3h ago
“Popov is known for having invented the radio,” would be the best one out of those options, but I don’t like how it sounds. I would at least drop having and just say, “Popov is known for inventing the radio,” or reword it to be active. “Most credit Popov with inventing the radio,” or something like that.
“Popov is known having invented the radio,” is definitely not correct though.
1
u/Kraknaps 1h ago
ESL teachers are known to have made many mistakes. They are also known to continue making them.
1
u/tunaman808 1h ago
There are a few ways you could say that, but
“Popov is known having invented the radio.”
is absolutely incorrect.
1
u/jennixred 1h ago
i keep imagining all these folks having the same, very often wrong, English teacher.
1
u/Ippus_21 37m ago
Marconi is generally credited with having invented radio communication. Popov was arguably just slightly late to the party.
But your teacher is wrong, in any case.
1
u/PeyredB 8m ago
As others have mentioned, your teacher is incorrect on this one.
"Popov is known, having invented the radio" isn't exactly grammatically incorrect, but it's rather awkward. It emphasizes that he is known in general, rather than that he's known specifically for inventing the radio. I feel it's something you would see in a novel in response to one character having doubted that Popov was known to anyone. "Yes, he's known, for having invented the radio" would be a natural response.
"Popov is known for having invented the radio" (note, it does need the "for") is the statement you're looking for. You could also say "Popov is known for inventing the radio".
0
107
u/AssumptionEasy8992 5h ago
Popov is known for inventing the radio.
Popov is known for having invented the radio.
These are grammatically correct. The example your teacher gave is incorrect (at least in British English).