4 ms·
Some instances of "had" can be elided without loss of meaning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_while_John_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_a_bet
by Karellen 3y ago
Some instances of "had" can be elided without loss of meaning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_while_John_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_a_better_effect_on_the_teacher https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_while_John_had_had_had_h...
Kind of like that that can be similarly strange
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/That_that_is_is_that_that_is_not_is_not_is_that_it_it_is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/That_that_is_is_that_that_is_n...
- whimsicalism 3y agoI'm not at all an expert on grammar, just know what sounds right to my ear. Can you more explicitly connect the 'had had' sentence to this example?
- Karellen 3y agoOK. The punctuated version is: > James, while John had had "had", had had "had had"; "had had" had had a better effect on the teacher If you take the first clause: > James, while John had had "had" You could replace it with: > James, while John had "had" Similarly, most of the (non-quoted) instances of "had had" could be replaced with "had", keeping the meaning almost exactly the same. (edit: this is the point of the sentence. "had had" and "had" are almost equivalent, but the teacher happens to prefer "had had".) This is like the original, where "had said" can be contracted to "said" without loss of meaning, so > She had said goodbye too many times before is equivalent to: > She said goodbye too many times before