I wonder whether it is optional/necessary that I repeat the 'have' in the sentence below (from an academic writing)

While both aforementioned approaches have enjoyed many success stories and have drawn on mature implementations in industry, their limitations becomes prominent when handling embedded software.

  • 1
    Hey, I had to remove your final parenthetical sentence, because that kind of request is off-topic here. In response to the primary question: the sentence would feel weird to me without the second have. – Dan Bron Jul 31 '15 at 16:14
  • @DanBron Thanks. Is there any rule that says the second 'have' needs to be repeated ? – zell Jul 31 '15 at 16:19
  • Unfortunately I am merely a native speaker - I don't even pretend to be a linguist or grammarian. Fortunately, other people on this site are legit linguists and may be able to identify such a rule (if there is one). The experts over at English Language Learners are very helpful and responsive too. – Dan Bron Jul 31 '15 at 16:21
  • 2
    @Dan: I suspect the reason we'd prefer the second have to be present is at least partly because the two verbs (and associated clauses) being "paralleled" have no real semantic connection. You might feel different if it had been, for example, ...have enjoyed many successes and solved many problems (where the repeated many helps underscore the parallelism). I'd also say that the longer the intervening text between the two verbs, the less keen we are on remembering and "carrying over" elipted words like that. – FumbleFingers Jul 31 '15 at 16:47

I think it's a close call. If you leave it out, there can be no ambiguity because 'drawn' is the past participle and therefore can only belong with the previous 'have'. On the other hand the gap is just long enough to give pause when reading.

It is grammatically correct with a single 'have' but, on balance I suggest repeating it.


Your Answer

