Have/had/has- is this correct?

Question

Hi I'm translating some text, and I'm quite doubtful about a few sentences.
I'm confused whether two parts of the sentence should be "has" or "have" or "had":

Recent events have shown that this aged formula, though still existent, has become absolutely empty.
(by "empty" I mean it bares no results or that it is not useful like an "empty promise" - maybe I should use some other adjective?)

and also :
Can I say that: in exchange for something, someone has been dealt something?
for instance: "In exchange for its territories, the country has been dealt a war" ?
(like being dealt a bad hand in cards or something)

and one last sentence that really got me confused: a) Is the placing of the commas in the sentence correct?
b) the idiom "under Damocle's Sword" is supposed to mean "being at risk/peril" (the risk being: terrorism and a chance of a large-scale war)
but did I use it correctly in this sentence?

A problem which is equally painful for both Palestinians and Israelis, constantly found under Damocles’ Sword of terrorism and a perspective of a large-scale war.

Thanks in advance ^_^

Kat

Clive · Accepted Answer

Hi,
I'm translating some text, and I'm quite doubtful about a few sentences.
I'm confused whether two parts of the sentence should be "has" or "have" or "had":
events (plural) have formula (singular) has

Recent events have shown that this aged formula, though still existent, has become absolutely empty.
(by "empty" I mean it ~~bares~~ bears no results or that it is not useful like an "empty promise" - maybe I should use some other adjective?) Yes, it doesn't seem to make sense to talk of an 'empty fomula'. How about a 'worthless formula'?
and also :
Can I say that: in exchange for something, someone has been dealt something?
for instance: "In exchange for its territories, the country has been dealt a war" ?
(like being dealt a bad hand in cards or something) Yes.

and one last sentence that really got me confused: a) Is the placing of the commas in the sentence correct?
b) the idiom "under Damocle's Sword" is supposed to mean "being at risk/peril" (the risk being: terrorism and a chance of a large-scale war)
but did I use it correctly in this sentence?

A problem which is equally painful for ~~both~~ Palestinians and Israelis, both constantly found under the Damocles’ Sword of terrorism and with the prospect of ~~a perspective of~~ a large-scale war.

I've moved 'both' to make the meaning clearer.

You are talking about a specific kind of Damocles' Sword.

'Perspective' is not a suitable word here.

The idea of making the Damocles' sword refer to two things (terrorism / war) doesn't seem to me to work well. Can you just forget about the sword and say 'under the threat of'?

Finally, the Sword of Damocles deals with a threat that is present but has not yet materialized. Surely terrorism and war have already happened in the situation you are describing?

Note that this sentence lacks a main verb. It's basically just saying 'A problem (which .....)'

Best wishes, Clive

MissFamine · Answer

Thanks so much Clive, you really helped!
And yeah I'm well aware that the sentence has no verb, but it works in the context, being a second sentence of an introduction...
It's text I'm translating so there's only so much freedom to edit and change the original source :\
And the writer is more of a researcher than an author so it's proving to be quite annoying to translate.
I'm going to go through it again when I have the finished product and will probably get rid of that stupid idiom and the stupid sword

Best regards,
Kat =^-^=

Anonymous · Answer

it has a factory.Is it correct

Have/had/has- is this correct?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬