Had had

>had had

If it's good enough for the cornfather it's good enough for me.

>that that

i hadn't had cancer in my system before i saw this thread.

This

>is is

past perfect tense of possession e.g. "I had had a cat, but then I had a dog"

clarification of a specific object e.g. "I had a cat that that the other cat bit"

okay I'm p sure this is just incorrect grammar

>"I had a cat that that other cat bit"

fixed

It's called the 'pluperfect'.
> I had had
The period of 'having' was in the past and ended in the past.

Subordinating conjunction 'that' with demonstrative pronoun 'that'.
> I had a cat that that dog had bitten.
> I had a cat which that dog had bitten.

>It's called the 'pluperfect'.

It sounds and looks terrible.

Like a flaw in the English language that should've been fixed.

>booga booga

English is not even my first language and it doesn't sound weird to me. Maybe it did when I learned pluperfect years ago, but I don't have any problem with it now.

>is is

This can be done grammatically, but it is an awkward structure that might be better if worded differently. An example would be something like 'What a book is is a time machine.' Out of context this is probably not the best word order to use, but there could be a justification for it.
This is to say nothing of something like 'That depends on what your definition of "is" is,' which is kind of cheating. Also, when people say 'The thing is is that...', that is completely wrong.

>pluperfect
>terrible
No, it's completely legit and has a very long history

>buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo

>That cat bit the cat I had
>That cat bit the cat I used to have.
Eh...there are plenty of ways to get around the that "that that" example :^)

>the child is four-years-old
When did this suddenly become acceptable? That usage is all over the place now, but it's totally wrong.

>it's instead of its
Every time.

I've only seen "four year-old"

Literally every language has the pluperfect, and English is not alone in forming it with auxiliary verbs.

> I had read this thread
> J'avais lu ce fil.
> Ich hatte diesen faden gelesen.
> Hoc filum lexeram.

>subordinating conjunction
In your example it's a relative pronoun dumbass

*legeram

Many people think these constructions look odd in writing. That is a personal aesthetic preference. I personally avoid using "that that" or "had had" when possible, but I also acknowledge that it is part of the English language, and if I come across someone's writing and they use the construction, that is totally fine.

If anyone thinks there's anything wrong with these constructions (had had, that that, is is, etc), other than personal aesthetic preference, they are completely ignorant. "Had" as in possess/certain idioms is a different word than the auxiliary "had." You have no problem with saying "should have" or "was having," so why should you have a problem with "had had?"
The complementizer "that" is a different word than the demonstrative "that." You have no problem saying "which that" or "if that," why would you have a problem with "that that?"

All these constructions are undeniably Standard English. Just because two different words have the same phonological form does not mean they can't appear next to each other. There is clearly not a rule in English that states that two words with identical phonological form must not appear adjacent to each other. Such a rule rules out many perfectly normal constructions. In most American English dialects, "marry" and "Mary" have the same phonological form, and there's nothing wrong with saying "John wants to marry Mary." The only way you could rule these constructions out of the English language would be to posit a rule specifically for each one, and there is no reason to do so.

Additionally, you hear these constructions constantly in spoken English. They sound totally natural. For instance, the complementizer "that" is reduced phonetically, while the demonstrative "that" is not. They have a completely different vowel quality when they're next to each other in spoken English.

This is like saying you should avoid using the passive, or avoid using negation. It is just not consistent with English usage. If that's your personal preference then fine, but there is no reason to believe that it is "better English" to avoid these constructions than not.

>never you mind

illiterate niggers

If it's something like 'a four-year-old child', that's correct, as long as the whole thing is hyphenated since it's a compound adjective. 'Four year-old' wouldn't be correct either, unless it were something like 'I saw four year-old dogs, and all four of them were playful.'

"Relative pronoun" is not a valid lexical category, and neither is "subordinating conjunction." Funnily enough, it turns out that most of what people call "relative pronouns" and "subordinating conjunctions" are part of a real lexical category called "complementizers." Also, the use of "that" in a sentence like
>John thinks that Mary likes him
and
>John likes the food that he ate as a kid
are the same thing. There is a gap in the second example, "John like the food that he ate as a kid," but "that" is not moved from the gap, "the food" is. Notice that you could say both of these sentences:
>John likes the food he ate as a kid
>John likes the food that he ate as a kid
In other words, you start with the clause [that he ate the food as a kid], and move [the food] to the left edge, giving you [the food [that he ate t as a kid]] (with "t" representing the gap). "That" starts out on the left edge, and "the food" moves around it.

>"Relative pronoun" is not a valid lexical category, and neither is "subordinating conjunction."
I'm cooking some popcorn on my monitor with the heat emanating from that take

Continuing this, if "that" were moved from the gap in that sentence (John likes the food that he ate as a kid) like a WH-word (i.e. "what"), then both forms wouldn't work. For instance,
>John likes what he ate as a kid
is fine, but
>John likes he ate as a kid
is not.

Learn some syntax, bud. Complementizers are legit, "relative pronouns" aren't.

It's an old saying that goes back to Middle English and it's perfectly grammatical.

> I had had a cat that that the other cat bit

It's nigger speak.

Complementizers are a useful concept for anyone interested in Japanese, as the language deals with subordination rather differently from English. There are no relative pronouns in Japanese, but there are obviously complements.

I love these grammarfriends just blowing everyone straight the fuck out

What is the cornfather ?

it depends on what the definition of is is.

see two two twin

Iced him

Dumb anime poster

>James while John had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher

every word out of your mouth and text made by your hands is nigger language.

LEMON

im stealing this meme for redditupvotes

>I could care less

>what what?

>should of cared less

What are all possible parse trees of this?

That image isn't true, however I can tell you that the pronoun "I" in Somali is "aniga".

James, while John had had "had", had had "had had"; "had had" had had a better effect on the teacher.

Thanks.

Why lego and intelligo have different perfects is beyond me.

>me hi menoy

>dumb anime poster
>on an anime website
ok

>past perfect tense of possession
No. I did have a cat. I had had is a different sense of had like in having a sandwich or a cold. I had had too many drinks.

I hope this is bait, but I'll respond anyway. "Had had" is past perfect. It can be past perfect of possession or past perfect of an idiomatic use of "had." "Have a sandwich" means "eat a sandwich," not necessarily "possess a sandwich." You could say "I had had a sandwich already by the time you got here." You could also use the "possess" use of "had" in past perfect tense to get "had had." "I did have a cat" is not past perfect. That's just simple past with "did" instead of past tense morphology on the verb. Notice that you can do the same with any past tense verb:
>I ate a pizza --> I did eat a pizza
>I invited John and Mary to the party --> I did invite John and Mary to the party
>I bet $20 with Anne on the race --> I did bet $20 with Anne on the race

"Had had" can use the "possess" version of "had." Just to be clear, those two "had"s are different words. You can use both in past perfect constructions, just like you can use any normal verb.
Past perfect "tense" conveys past temporal reference and perfective aspectual reference. That means that the reference time for the event being related precedes the present moment, and the event being related took place prior to the reference time with no overlap. Say our reference time is "when you were in college," and the event is "have a cat." If the event was completed prior to the reference time, then you could say "I had had a cat, but when we moved we couldn't keep it." That would be past perfect.

>That's just simple past with "did" instead of past tense morphology on the verb.
That is terribly incorrect my pseud friend.

>If the event was completed prior to the reference time, then you could say "I had had a cat, but when we moved we couldn't keep it." That would be past perfect.
That would be "did have" again. I think there's a question of mood, that is you can say "had had" under specific circumstances for bona fide possession, but generally no and in all your examples also no. In p much any other sense of had you can use had had though.

The rest of your comment is fluff from dancing around after getting something wrong or, weirdly, agreeing with me.

Steppenwolf 101

>in the butt

"Did have" is interchangeable with "had", ESL-kun. They're both simple past, with differing levels of emphasis.

>I had a cat that that the other cat bit

I don't know where you learned English, but you don't have a standard dialect. "Did have" is NOT past perfect. "Did + bare verb" is simple past, not past perfect. I don't know how you don't get that. Find any situation where you can use simple past and instead use "did." You get the same meaning. Think about what happens when you form a question with a past tense verb.
>John ate a pizza --> What DID John eat?
It is not past perfect there. You could also say
>John DID eat a pizza --> What DID John eat?
If it were past perfect, it would be
>John HAD eaten a pizza --> What HAD John eaten?
What makes you think "did have" is past perfect? Do you think all the other examples of "did + bare verb" are past perfect too? Also, are you a native speaker of English?

That that that you're angry over this is a sign of illiteracy is really nothing new.

What the fact that stupid is what your comment was and is is is obvious.

Oh, and by the way. 'I had had had a cat' is correct too.

Please explain

I had a fat cat. (past)
I had had a fat cat. (past + participle)
I had had fat a cat. (inversion)
I had had had a cat. ('I had had a cat that is had', namely, that is owned, via grammatical equivalence of adjectives and participles)

The sentence could mean something like 'I used to have a cat that long ago that has been changing owners a lot recently.'.

Notice that when you speak, you would not say "had had," you would almost certainly make the first one into a contraction. This is possible because the first had is an auxiliary verb.
>I would have gotten you a nicer present if only I'd had enough money.
vs
>I would have gotten you a nicer present if only I had had enough money.

I don't understand what's happening with "inversion" in those examples. Could you give an example in an unrelated sentence?

"ooga ooga booga browsing lost" - Google

dooga is grass

dooga mooga on the otherhand is browsing lost.

Sure. I meant inversion in the sense of 'I have a brilliant dad' -> 'I have brilliant a dad'. This rule can be applied to participles like 'had' ('he was had by...') too.

What if you change "ooga" to "uga" or "oga"

...

I would never say 'gotten'.

I think it's generally an American English/British English split on whether or not you use "gotten." I do know some older Americans who don't use "gotten" though.

>
>I had a fat cat. (past)
Yes.
>I had had a fat cat. (past + participle)
Nope. Where is the 'participle'? It's just the pluperfect of 'to have'.
>I had had fat a cat. (inversion)
Nonsensical.
>I had had had a cat. ('I had had a cat that is had', namely, that is owned, via grammatical equivalence of adjectives and participles)
Nonsensical. If 'had' were to be used in the sense of 'pre-owned' (which it never is), it would be 'I had had a had cat'.

Poor grammar.

What the fuck do you think the 'pluperfect' is? It's past tense with a participial argument. In fact, English only has two tenses, past and present.

As for the rest, it's just 'I haven't heard it, so it's wrong'. Close your syntactic gaps.

>It's past tense with a participial argument.

(As the example goes, the passive of 'I have had' is 'had is had by me'.)

wouldn't the 'a' need to be removed there?

No; why? There is really no difference between past participles and adjectives (cf., oh, 'wasted', which can be seen as both), and the adjectival inversion of 'an adjectival noun' into 'adjectival a noun' requires preservation of the article.

No, it really is not a participle.

The pluperfect in English is formed with the past tense of the auxiliary 'to have', e.g.

> I had read your post

Just because the pluperfect of 'to have' is the awkward 'had had' doesn't make it not an auxiliary verb.

I was talking about the *argument* of the 'had'. 'Had had', 'had gone', ...

>What the fuck do you think the 'pluperfect' is? It's past tense with a participial argument.
No, pluperfect is similar to the perfect (re completed action), but the difference is that unlike the perfect, the effect of the pluperfect action is confined to the past.
>In fact, English only has two tenses, past and present.
We'll start with the future tense for now and leave the rest for later

>pluperfect is similar to the perfect (re completed action), but the difference is that unlike the perfect, the effect of the pluperfect action is confined to the past

Translation: the participle can be an argument of either past ('had done') or present ('have done') tense. Why bring some ridiculous superfluous Latinate terms into this?

>future tense

The bullshit so-called 'modal verbs' are just present tenses with a missing third person marker. Can + could, shall + should, will + would, present + past. No future tense in sight.

In other words, 'I will go' is present tense with an unmarked argument.

>present + past

Or I should rather day 'pass + passed'...

Okay, there is a difference of terms here. I see in particular your point on tense, from a morphological standpoint

A participle is the part of the verbal morphology paradigm that appears with perfective aspect in English.
Here's the paradigm for "go"
Bare: Go
Present: Goes/Go
Past: Went
Participle: Gone
Progressive: Going

The participle appears in the past perfect in English.

Shall we settle this for the undereducated teenagers here with a nice conjugation table. English has more than just present and past tense, it merely doesn't conjugate for them and uses auxiliary verbs.

Present active: I write this.
Present passive: this is written by me.
Present continual active: I am writing this.
Present continual passive: this is being written by me.
Past active: I wrote this.
Past passive: this was written by me.
Imperfect active: I was writing this.
Imperfect passive: this was being written by me.
Future active: I shall write this.
Future passive: this will be written by me.
Perfect active: I have written this.
Perfect passive: this has been written by me.
Pluperfect active: I had written this.
Pluperfect passive: this had been written by me.

With the auxiliaries of condition and supposition, that's it.

>a morphological standpoint
>morphology

Precisely. Education is excusively focused on the concept of 'semantic tense', to the effect of learners being overwhelmed by ridicuous things like 'English has 37 future tenses and 45 past ones' just because those are the ways to 'express' it. Starting with the morphemes is both less intimidating (there's just a couple: -d -t), and builds good habits of morphemic analysis/curiosity.

Oh Jesus Christ. This is exactly the horrible crap that we should get rid of as soon as possible.

You're right that there is no present tense in English. "Tense" in grammar refers to a morphological marker, such as -ed in past tense. Adding an auxiliary like "will" as in "we will eat later" is not future tense. It does let you use future temporal reference though.

"Pluperfect" is the same as past perfect.

Auxiliaries are not tenses. A tense is a morphological marker. What you have listed is a number of ways of expressing different temporal and aspectual references. Many Indo-European languages express these temporal and aspectual references using tense. English does not. Also, active vs passive has nothing to do with tense. It's an argument-structure transformation.

>morphemic analysis

For instance, if say 'gone' and 'written' share the same -n, then a slower student of English would definitely use being told this, so to take early notice of silent letters and how they obscure historical identity and such.

Very well put. I particularly agree with the voice point.

Yeah, the kind of stuff you learn in English classes is usually pretty far from the way things actually work.

>Auxiliaries are not tenses.
Nonsense. Just because English (or French or German) forms tenses with auxiliary verbs, and not morphologically, doesn't make them less of a tense.

If I were an English teacher, the difference between morphemic structure and, like put it, 'temporal reference' would be the subject of my vety first class. Surface structure vs deep structure, isn't it? 'We're leaving' is usually taught to be indicative and present, while in fact the two layers are completely separate. In fact... it might only now have fully dawned on me that it's completely wrong to speak of any 'true' meaning of a morpheme like -d or -s; their histories and applications reach too far back and are too diverse, the senses have been changing too much. Perhaps the way to do it is to use terms like 'indicative' and 'present' solely referring to particular utterances, so here, 'we're leaving' would be future and, uh, 'we're-threatening-you-ive'. (I would have to coin the proper Latinate term.) And it needs to be stressed to students that affixes at no point have any 'true' denotation, because they're too dependent on historical and usage context.

Just a loose rant.

You're thinking of temporal and aspectual reference. Temporal reference places the reference time of an action with respect to the utterance time. Aspectual reference places the event time with respect to the reference time. "Tense" and "aspect" are terms that refer to morphology. Tense and aspect are just one way to express temporal and aspectual reference.

You might think that the auxiliary forms a kind of "compound verb" with the lexical verb, so it's not that different from a morphological tense. That's actually incorrect, at least in English. The auxiliary takes the whole verb phrase as its complement. A sentence like "We will eat pizza" would have a structure like pic related.

It might seem like this is just a pointless terminological distinction, but it's necessary if we're going to be consistent when we talk about English. For instance, you could say something like "I'm visiting the zoo tomorrow," or "I leave for Paris next weekend." The verbs in those examples aren't marked for future tense, yet future temporal reference is conveyed. The words "tomorrow" and "next weekend" are what give you the future temporal reference. We wouldn't refer to those as "tenses." It wouldn't be consistent to refer to the use of "will" or other auxiliaries to convey future temporal reference as "future tense" either. They are separate words that convey future temporal reference.

Also, auxiliaries are marked for tense themselves. If you want to call the auxiliary a tense, you would have to say that tenses can be marked for tense.

>which is kind of cheating
kind of. I mean, to his point, is a blowjob cheating?

The sexual act is completely irrelevant here and only of puerile interest. Using his sentence as a valid example of 'is is' is cheating because what's in quotes is arbitrary instead of being itself integral to the grammar of the sentence (just like in this sentence, so no threefer for me).

It really is cheating. I'm looking up a thread from searching >same time three times in a row, and aside from this nice effort:

>If you were to second-guess your decision to book time to visit a Native American community, that would be a reservation reservation reservation.

Every attempt just uses quotes or names.


What I'm thinking about at the moment is the list of words that can occur infinitely in a row (outside of participles of course, 'considering considering considering...').

>so so

He did so so so beautifully to state his point.