Ich halte das auch eindeutig für eine nicht editierte Ersetzung und keine richtige Form.

Bin kein Englisch-Muttersprachler ...

Aber m. E. ist "to be have been" schlichtweg Unsinn.


*Laut Internet scheint diese Konstruktion gar nicht mal so selten zu sein.*

Na und? Deshalb muss sie noch lange nicht richtig sein.


Wenn man z. B. allein danach ginge, wie oft hier im Forum (!) "das" und "dass" verwechselt wird, müsste das auch schon längst als korrekt gelten - tut es aber nicht.

Stimme 1 und 2 zu.

Actually, many of those that can be found on the Internet are not necessarily incorrect. As always, it pays to look at the matches carefully. A fair number are using "to-be" as a person (short for somthing like "bride-to-be" etc.: "Unless you and your to-be have been living together...."

Others, it's preceded by another verb: "people who are believed to be have been living..." "you would have to be have been living on a"(I can't say that that is the best writing, but it's not the obvious error that's in the OP.)

Danke Euch.

@hbberlin
Um ehrlich zu sein, höre ich den Unterschied zwischen
- OP: "have been identified to be have been living" und
- #4: "are believed to be have been living"
nicht heraus. Könntest Du mir noch einen Hinweis geben, warum das im OP als "obvious error" erkennbar ist und das andere nur als nicht so toller Schreibstil?

Looking at it again, I agree. The OP, while not terribly elegant, is the same structure. "identified to be" "have been living".

Danke!

@hbberlin: Somebody is have been living?
I am have been ...,
you are have been ...,
we are have been ... etc.

Are you have been being serious??

297 hits site:uk; including parents-to-be, bride-to-be, but also gems such as 'We are proud to be have been crowned the "World's Best Traditional Pasty" ...'

Only pasties can express themselves so well. What does this construction do that we are proud to have been crowned does not do?

170 hits on site:edu, including some with a comma: ... appear to be, have been brought into ...

'You find that everything obvious and easy seems to be have been said ...'

The only obvious thing is that everything obvious seems to have been said does the same job better.


Crossover between seems/appears/are proud to be having and seems/appears/are proud to have been?

Mit anderen Worten: Ich bezweifle, dass das eine legitime Tempusform ist. Wie würde man es denn grammatisch bezeichnen?

Ist mir hier etwa eine sprachliche Neuerung völlig entgangen??

Just to be clear, the examples in the second paragraph of hb's #4 are also obvious errors.

They should read

people who are believed to have been living ...
you would have to have been living on ...

Similarly, igm's example should read

... that have been identified to have been living in XYZ Square ...

or perhaps more concisely

... that have been identified as living ...

And it's begging, pleading, crying out for a comma after the extremely long phrase before the subject:

... XYZ Square during this period, ten were working as ...

The source of the error is obvious and in itself interesting.

I imagine someone wrote 'have been identified to have been living' and either the author or an editor thought the two perfects were too much or tautologous, and substituted 'to be' for 'to have been' while forgetting to delete the latter. Pedantically, one might argue that 'to have been' is more accurate if the 'living' preceded the 'identifying' -- but I don't think that's a good enough reason for retaining it.

Danke für Eure weiteren Erörterungen. Ich hatte tatsächlich erstmal angenommen, dass das eine zulässige Form ist. Möglicherweise, weil im Deutschen Varianten à la "zu wollen gekonnt haben würden" (<-- Warnhinweis: kein korrektes Deutsch!) kaum Grenzen gesetzt zu sein scheinen.