In the grammar test, Timmy, where Tommy had had ‘had had’ had had ‘had’. ‘Had had’ had had the teachers approval and was correct.
is a semantically and syntactically entirely correct and logical sentence.
deleted by creator
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.
Three buffalos too many
Nope, just clarifying that the Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo do also in turn buffalo Buffalo buffalo (possibly as part of a vicious circle of buffaloing).
Could be even more specific and say that they only buffalo Buffalo buffalo who’re already being buffaloed by Buffalo buffalo…:
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo…
… though that’d mean that the original Buffalo buffalo who instigated all the buffaloing might be getting away with it without being themselves buffaloed in turn…
Posts on Lemmy don’t have a huge readership, but it’s nice that that that that had had had had something to contribute.
You never actually have to do that. Skill issue tbh.
Norwegian
Er det det det er? Is that what it is?
Det er det det er That is what it is
All languages united, fucked up
lingua fucka
Non-native english speaker brain melting here
Put a comma between the middle two had’s. Had had is still awful phrasing though.
Reading that felt like mental gymnastics. I didn’t even get bronze. As a native English speaker to anyone learning the language… “I pity the fool”.
My problem with English is that the word “tough” should be spelt “tuff”
Sounds ruff.
I thot about this thurowley
You can pretty much always reword the sentence to avoid this. It’s kind of always just bad grammar tbh.
“He wanted to make sure that that window had been closed.”
“He wanted to ensure that window had been closed.”
Yes, OP image is legit someone who is just not very good at grammar.
“I wish you had told me that that was a problem”.
“I wish you had told me that was a problem”.
The same subject, object and meaning.
Speech patterns are flexible and don’t have to precisely follow written grammar. One of the many confusing intricacies of the bastard language we call English.
So someone needs to tell him that that that is unnecessary?
I would argue that the grammar is better and clearer in your
secondfirst example.Edit: oops
I think that may have even been their point!
That that was their point that they had had attempted to make there wasn’t clear.
Oops, I meant first example!
Why not just say, “He wanted to make sure the window was closed.”?
To reword the OP, “All my good faith had no effect on the outcome.”
To reword the title, “I hate when that happens.”
Agreed, almost every time this happens, I think someone’s just being lazy or intentional. As a matter of personal preference, I reword sentences to exclude the word “that” altogether whenever possible, so the idea of two consecutive "that"s being unavoidable severly strains my credulity.
Which window? This window or that window? Any window? Yeesh. Had you thought to specify that that window needed closed we wouldn’t need this discussion.
Which window? This window or that window? Any window? Yeesh. Had you thought to specify that that window needed closed we wouldn’t need this discussion.
One of the major problems encountered in time travel is not that of becoming your own father or mother. There is no problem in becoming your own father or mother that a broad-minded and well-adjusted family can’t cope with. There is no problem with changing the course of history—the course of history does not change because it all fits together like a jigsaw. All the important changes have happened before the things they were supposed to change and it all sorts itself out in the end.
The major problem is simply one of grammar, and the main work to consult in this matter is Dr. Dan Streetmentioner’s Time Traveler’s Handbook of 1001 Tense Formations. It will tell you, for instance, how to describe something that was about to happen to you in the past before you avoided it by time-jumping forward two days in order to avoid it. The event will be descibed differently according to whether you are talking about it from the standpoint of your own natural time, from a time in the further future, or a time in the further past and is futher complicated by the possibility of conducting conversations while you are actually traveling from one time to another with the intention of becoming your own mother or father.
Most readers get as far as the Future Semiconditionally Modified Subinverted Plagal Past Subjunctive Intentional before giving up; and in fact in later aditions of the book all pages beyond this point have been left blank to save on printing costs.
The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy skips lightly over this tangle of academic abstraction, pausing only to note that the term “Future Perfect” has been abandoned since it was discovered not to be.
- Douglas Adams
To reword the OP, “All my good faith had no effect on the outcome.”
sometimes when telling a story you want to have a different voice, active voice versus passive voice or something. “All the good faith I’d had” hits different than “All my good faith”
there’s better ways to word this though, while being able to keep the same tone
Right, I forgot about passive vs active. Good point.
All the good faith I had had had had no meaningful effect on that that had not been changed. Had it had an effect, the affect would effect the creaking warped wood that would control my destiny; had it had, of course.
That that that that he had had in his sentence was grammatically correct.
That that that that he had had had had been correct
ftfy
The Chinese have an entire story with seemingly one word that varies only by how it is pronounced:
Now imagine the kids like: “Hey, mom, can we have a bedtime story?” and the mom just going full “shi shi shi shi”
In Ukrainian, there would be a comma in between "had had"s. I hate that English doesn’t do that. You don’t need punctuation to affect the way the sentence is read aloud, just make it easier to parse.
It’s crazy that that sentence is totally understandable.
