Of course I can say ‘we are having a hurricane’. Whatever gave you the idea I would object to that?
And ‘plan on having bad weather’ is ok too. But as intimated earlier, I tolerate it and prefer ‘plan for bad weather’ or slightly more clumsily ‘plan to have bad weather’.
Good for you. I’m glad you plan on heading down there. In fact, I congratulate you on having such firm plans to head down there. 
“Plan to have bad weather” is definitely infelicitous to me. It can only mean something like “Arrange things such that bad weather happens”.
Interesting. You are interpreting ‘have’ as ‘make’ and I am interpreting it as ‘experience’.
If I say ‘plan for bad weather’ do you think you are being asked to create it or being advised you will experience it?
No. I am interpreting the “plan to” construction as saying something like “arrange things such that you do X” and the “plan on” construction as saying something like “be prepared in case you do X” . So “Plan to have bad weather” means “Arrange things such that you have bad weather.” and “Plan on having bad weather” means “Be prepared for having bad weather”. The having is the same in both cases and in neither case means “make”. It’s just that “Arranging things such that you have bad weather” means the same thing as “Make bad weather”.
Right. My point exactly.
But this isn’t a property of “have”. “Have” is just a light verb. It doesn’t ever mean “make”, it’s just that “arranging things such that there is bad weather” describes a situation where “making bad weather” is roughly equivalent.
Do you understand that “Joe Biden has white hair” means something different than “The president of the US has white hair”?
You keep saying “it’s just that…”
Indeed it is. I don’t really know where you are going with “not a property of ‘have’”. It was the whole “arranging things such that you have” that was equivalent to make, or create.
I am not sure what this has to do with things, but yes, technically it has a different meaning - but it all depends on context. In some current contexts they would not in reality mean anything sufficiently different to matter.
I’m not sure how we got here, risking descending into a debate about the many (many!) meanings and usages of ‘have’.
To reiterate:
To plan (verb) to, to plan for, to plan on … doing something are all fine.
Having, or there being a plan (noun) to, or a plan for … doing something is fine.
Having a plan ON doing something is not. Any plan ON is physically or metaphorically ON something else. E.g. I have a plan on the drawing board, I have a plan on the boil.
And the opposite of on is also good, as it happens. I have a plan under consideration, my plan is under the table, on the floor.
Just to repeat what you say here to make sure that I understand: In your dialect you judge these sentences like this:
“Sarah is planning for having a hurricane” OK
“Sarah has a plan for having a hurricane” OK
“Sarah is planning to have people over” OK
“Sarah has a plan to have people over” OK
“Sarah is planning on having people come over.” OK
“Sarah has a plan on having people come over.” BAD
And you view your dialect as clearly superior to a dialect that judges them like this:
“Sarah is planning for having a hurricane” OK
“Sarah has a plan for having a hurricane” OK
“Sarah is planning to have people over” OK
“Sarah has a plan to have people over” OK
“Sarah is planning on having people come over.” OK
“Sarah has a plan on having people come over.” OK
Thus you think that a dialect where the analogical extension from the verb “plan” to the noun “plan” is inconsistent and broken is more logical and more clear?
Okay. I can’t say I agree, but we all have our things.
I don’t think one plans on ‘having’ a hurricane in the sense of your examples. The use of ‘having’ here is clunky and not a perfectly cromulent use of the verb have, in my view, though I’ll grant that many other forms do work. Such as “we are going to have a hurricane here this weekend” - though I would always say “there is going to BE a hurricane here this weekend”. The use if have here really does make it sound like one intends or expects to entertain a hurricane - “Good afternoon Mr Hurricane, do come in” is how it sounds to me, when accompanying the phrase ‘planning on having’.
But yes, the one usage I object to is ‘has a plan on having…’
However, when you say
I am not sure I follow your logic, because I say yes it is broken and inconsistent and that is why it is NOT logical and clear, when the preposition ‘on’ is used.
And sadly, I must away to my to bed imminently.
Here’s an odd one, for pedantic review.
That sounded completely wrong to me and I would have said ‘experience of’ but then had to think about why, seeing as ‘experience in’ is ok in other contexts.
So my tentative theory is that ‘experience of’ is about things you experience - such as things that happen to you, whereas ‘experience in’ is something you have experience of doing, and some skill in.
‘I have experience in carpentry, plumbing and bricklaying’ implies some level of skill. Maybe it means much the same as ‘I am experienced in’ these things.
‘I have experience of carpentry, etc,’ may simply mean that I did do some once. I certainly would not grant it the same meaning as ‘I am experienced in’ these things.
Unless this cop has had previous run-ins with being a viral internet meme/target for all the wrong reasons, I suspect this is his first experience of the Streisand effect and as such he cannot really be said to have much experience in it. Let him make himself the subject of viral internet actions he’d rather hush up three or four times more, and we may grant that it has become something he has experience in. Right now he’s just getting an experience of what it’s like.
Mulch with the rich. Stand shoulder to shoulder with billionaires, spreading good compost together.
Yes, that’s the trouble with with; with with with this specific example one might mean either alongside or using.
(I mainly posted this reply because it provided me with the chance to write a sentence with five withs in a row.)
“With” as a case-marker is pretty much a default that marks some participant in an event that isn’t already covered. A lot of times that means it marks the instrumental case but it might be sociative etc. Some linguistic syntactic theories actually account for this, like Role and Reference Grammar, whereas others like HPSG just leave this as a lexical artifact.
The case-marking vs preposition issue also is what allows for the famous attachment ambiguity in the sentence, “I saw the boy with the binoculars.” where “with the binoculars” can either be a modifier of “the boy” or an adverbial phrase modifying “saw”.
John while James had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher.
There is no period at the end of the thread title.
Nor is there a full stop.
I was wondering when someone would catch that.
I can’t make this parse without a full sentence break.
