"had had"

>"had had"

>>"

>"All the faith he had had had had no effect on him"

But that's correct, you fucking mongoloid.

Do you know what past perfect is?

How about you delete this post right fucking now?

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

It's not that that is an incorrect construction.
What 'had had' is is a pluperfect (or past perfect as mentions).

Depending on meaning, that sentence is perfectly grammatical, the first 'had had' being the verb in the relative clause and the second the main verb

I don't care about grammar, it's a sin against nature. Two had's is pushing it enough as is

John, while Mary had "had", had had "had had". "Had had" had had a better effect on the teacher

>that that

>the perfect use of language doesn't satisfy my personal sense of aesthetics

You can put another had in at the start.

It's not even aesthetically displeasing. I don't understand why he doesn't like it.

>"that that"

>frogposter
>stupid thread
>no board will ever be free of this cancer

I don't agree that that is a bad construction

>should of
>intensive purposes
>

>this thread
I could care less.

were you actually making good headway through infinite jest up until this point?

The only way you could even hope to save that atrocity of a sentence is by restructuring it as so:
"all the faith he had had had no effect on him".

How would four "hads" in a row even work for most English literature?

...

> hates had had
> likes to appear likes to appear like an edgy grammar nazi but does not have good grasp of grammar and usage
> makes thread

You can add* another had at the start.

>people that don't get that something can be unappealing even if it's grammatically correct.

English is a lax language, what do you expect to happen.

I mean, a contraction like "had'd" could be used in place of "had had", but is that really much better?

What about "that't"?

So you care?

>is is

>going to go

>a whole nother

>off of

>a contraction like "had'd" could be used in place of "had had"
No it couldn't. If anything, the first had could be contracted into the word preceding, e.g., he'd had