Had had

>whomst'd've

>walk the walk

>used to use

get used to had had used

Lived a knight once poor and simple
Pale of face with glance austere
Spare of speech but with a spirit
Proud, intolerant of fear

He had had a wondrous vision
Ne'er could feeble human art
Gauge its deep, mysterious meaning
It was graven on his heart

>have to have had had

That's not how you'd have had used.

As a non-native speaker these things really interest me. Isn't 'had had' a legitimate way to use the past tense? As in, expressing some "thing" that the person had (used to have) in some moment?

Slightly off topic is the use of With / In. Like if i were to say "His hands were covered in / with"... Which one is the correct term? Just a matter of taste?

And what about off of? Is there any other way to express this?

And while we're at it, what about to / for? "Speak for / to group"?

Thanks.

At least for the last one, "speak for/to group"

If you are speaking for a group, you are representing them, you are their representative voice.

If you are speaking to a group, you are telling them something.

For "off of", you mean, "Get off of me!" ?

You could just say "off"
"Get off me!"
"Get off him!"

For "with/in", I think its a matter of taste. "His hands were covered in slime", "His hands were covered with slime".

The first one, "in", sounds more casual, slightly more poetic I guess because his hands are not literally in anything.

The second, "with", sounds more literal and normal.

Had had is legitimate, it's just silly sounding. A native speaker becomes aware of the language. Same with, "I do do that." "Ha, you said doo doo."

Re: in/with, there's very little difference here. You could get away with either. In might suggest an even greater emphasis to my ear but others might disagree. With seems like possibly the hands wouldn't be COMPLETELY covered.

Off of is perfectly correct as well. You could informally truncate it into offa. Sometimes people drop the of such as, "Get off of my roof!" "Get off my roof!" Those mean completely the same but I see no difference other than poetic meter I suppose.

Speak for/ speak to the group are completely different meanings. Speaking for the group would mean you are representing the group and speaking on their behalf to probably someone outside it. Speaking to the group would mean you are directly addressing the whole group.

Sorry i wasn't more clear. I meant more like;

"He spoke words of comfort for / to group" the speaker addressing the group. Those both sound good to me, then again, i'm not sure about the exact rules.

I'm pretty sure i've seen "had had" in several books (i've mostly only read Stephen King in english, so, eh) but if i remember correctly the english teacher as well told us that that's the correct way to write - then again, it's a long time since i was in school. I just wonder if i should use it in my writing (in emails, for example).

Thanks for the quick replies.

He had had enough Haddock

In this case, to would be better than for. Though I suppose for the group could work as well but it seems to have a slightly different meaning:
"He spoke words of comfort to the group." Very declarative. Unattached. Doesn't carry much weight.
"He spoke words of comfort for the group['s benefit]" I added the bracket to show the subtext of how for would slightly alter the meaning. For also seems a little bit more personal, meaningful, sentimental.

And oh yeah it's completely correct and grammatical it just makes you aware of some of the silliness of English itself.

Had have has ... now it can't be traced
Sorry, I know this has nothing to do with da /thread but I just had to let it out... sorry please forgive me

This image is going in my Ayn Rand folder, thanks bucko