Thought-provoking question!
I think we need to look at the sentence structure or else it'll be difficult to find it out. While transitive verbs make our task easy as they'd have a direct object following them. the problem occurs when the verb is intransitive.
But then, if you use 'intransitive' verbs, the sentence won't look complete without explaining the verb. For instance, 'break' is transitive and intransitive both (just like 'clean'); now you'll have to talk about the verb further in order to make the sentence complete.
He has broken - won't work
The moment you add '....his glass', we can make out that it is used as a verb.
The adjective pattern will be different than the 'verb pattern' in those sentences with PP.
In English, a 'single word' on its own may stand ambiguous. That's why we say, context is important.
[But let natives come with their take on this].
The verb in the example is "to paint". The principle parts of this verb are "paint", "painted" and "painted". The second and third principle parts happen to be the same, as they are for most English verbs.
However, that similarity does not occur in every English verb. For example, the principle parts of "to take" are "take", "took", "taken".
- She painted this picture.
- She took this picture.
This sentence uses the second principle part -- the past tense form. The word is used as a verb, has a tense, and has no auxiliary.
- She has painted this picture.
- She has taken this picture.
This sentence uses the third principle part -- the participle form. The word is used as part of a complete verb that includes the auxiliary "has". The complete verb is in the present tense and the perfect aspect.
The version that uses the verb "to take" cannot be mistaken for the past tense form -- "taken" looks and sounds nothing like "took". For the version that uses "to paint", it is only the fact that there is an auxiliary verb that indicates "painted" is the participle form.
By the way, this is not a passive voice construction. Passive voice uses the auxiliary "to be" instead of "to have". For example, "the picture was taken" or "the picture will be painted".
Participles can be used as a part of a complete verb, but they can also be used as modifiers. When they are modifiers, they are not combined with auxiliaries.
In general, participles that are alone come before the noun, as in "the painted picture". Participial phrases, however, tend to follow the noun:
- The picture painted by Karen is now in a museum.
- The picture taken by Karen is now in a museum.
The phrase "painted by Karen" does not have a tense, does not form a predicate, and does not have a subject. Instead, it behaves like an adjective and answers the question "which picture?" There is a verb in this sentence, but that verb is "is". The subject of "is" is "picture".
Prepositional phrases can do the same sort of job. Consider:
Your comment includes an example sentence that has bad grammar:
- The picture was painted by Karen is now in a museum.
Here's the problem: "Was painted" is a complete verb. It has a tense, it forms a predicate, and it needs a subject. "Is" is also a complete verb, possessing tense and forming a predicate and needing a subject. Unfortunately, there's only one subject available, and it can't satisfy both predicates.
There are a few ways to fix that problem. One way is to remove "was" and let "painted by Karen" act as a modifier. Another way is to give "was painted by Karen" its own subject, such as "The picture that was painted by Karen is now in a museum." Yet another way is to join the two predicates with a conjunction, so that the one subject can satisfy the resulting compound: "The picture was painted by Karen and is now in a museum."
Best Answer
I had it taken recently is definitely NOT in the past perfect!
(Both sentences are in the simple past.)
BACKGROUND
The name "past participle" is a rather unfortunate one. It's one of the sources of confusion in English grammar learning. This is mainly because the English passive voice and the English perfect use the same form of verb, i.e., the past participle form of a verb.
I quoted an entry in a grammar book once, in this answer (follow the link for more information). To demonstrate this point with the same examples, I'll discuss them, briefly, below:
In (2), called, the past participle form of call, is used after the auxiliary verb BE in its past form, was. A main verb in its past participle form after BE indicates that the clause is in the passive voice. In this example, someone called him -- he was called -- he was called by someone.
In (3), called, again the past participle form of call, is used after the auxiliary verb HAVE in its singular-present form, has. A main verb in its past participle form after HAVE indicates that the clause is in a perfect tense, in this case the present prefect. In this example, let's say that someone ask you, "Jack told me he'd call the lieutenant today. Has he called?" and because Jack has done so, you may reply, "He has called."
BACK TO OUR QUESTION (BARE PASSIVES, e.g., have something done)
The confusion caused by your sentence, I had it taken recently, is perfectly understandable, because in this sentence, had is the main verb, NOT an auxiliary verb. This is a special use of have, as defined in the Macmillan Dictionary in definition 14, like this:
So, I had it taken already means that you asked someone to take the photo, and the photo had already taken.
One way to explain the syntax of have something done is to treat it as a bare passive that complements the main verb (typical verbs of that allows bare passive complements are have, get, order, and other sense verbs such as see).