Bad words

>Tfw can no longer tell people "I'm coming" can still take myself seriously.

How the fuck could I have let this happen, bros?

had had

Too long on the internet and watching dirty shows.

I die every time I write this

Antidisestablishmentarianism

>It's a "that that" episode

Kill me now, brehs

Are our arbitrations almost done?

Any adverb.

>had had
You would have had to have said "have had," but good effort.

Why does this trigger people?

It just seems so cheap and plebian. It makes you feel like "there's no way someone like Dostoyevsky would use this shit in HIS writing".

>he had had a tooth pulled when he visited the dentist last week
>he have had a tooth pulled when he visited the dentist last week

Best, better, ought, should, genius, very, heart, dream, and others that I'm too drunk to enumerate

Who is John Galt?

Hopefully English isn't your first language because he had to have a tooth pulled when he visited the dentist last week is obviously superior

But adverbs are great.

>bigly

Have had being used as a conditional phrase

Literally.

>the

>this thread

>Literally

Also, I like via colloquially...

whomst*

>hitherto
>whither
>whence
>thence

>thus

...

>thusly

pleb detected

"They" is much, much better than e, ey, hu, peh, per, thon, ve, xe, yo, ze or zhe.
Absolutely disgusting
When used the wrong way, yes

Crap

well obviously since he didn't write in the piece of shit language that is english

>kudos

nice

>bloody

this isn't even a real swear England

came to post this

when someone uses this word i know they're full of shit

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

>he had a tooth pulled when he visited the dentist last week

>All of his previous faith had no effect on him

this is easy why do people struggle with this?

Also "thither".

>fundamentally changes the meaning of the sentence
>lol this is easy guys

the phrase "had had" has barely any coherent meaning to begin with

it conveys virtually no meaningful info and any info it does convey is extremely vague at best

pretty much the definition of filler and an awkward style of writing on top of that

lel, it's the verb to have in the pluperfect tense. It has a clear meaning and purpose.

>he had owned a car but his wife crashed it
>he had had a car but his wife crashed it

I mean just look at this sentence

>he had had a tooth pulled when he visited the dentist last week

what purpose is it really serving here?
at best it is simply enforcing the past tense but there is already the far more clear and descriptive "last week" within the very same sentence

I had had had a hard time with that expression when I was learning english, but it's easy now.

I mean you're technically right, but the necessity is implied-- why would you have a tooth pulled if you didn't need to?-- and no one really cares about omitting it anyway.

It indicates an ongoing action in the past. English's love of helper verb particle words and tendency to not use that many of them makes it wonky.

how can something that already happened in the past be ongoing?

this honestly makes no sense to me

I use thusly ironically

it's an action that was ongoing

>He'd had a tooth pulled when he visited the dentist last week.

That user is confused, the pluperfect is to convey that an action in the past happened before another action in the past. The sentence with the tooth doesn't have that, it was a shit example. Consider:

>When he arrived at the hospital she had had the baby.

And so thusly you make yourself look like an ass

>en route

>per se

>pet peeve

Give me a hug man

Literally is fine when used properly. The problem is people have started using it as a general purpose intensifier.

Someone once said to me, "The Catholic Church literally crucified gay people."

I almost had a stroke

it's literally ASS in finnish :DDDDDDDDDDDDD

it indicates the past perfect dumb dumb

what is the difference between i have written and i had written? that's the difference

congratulations! your comma placement is prime!

>any adverb

to clarify, the biggest difference between "have" and "had" is that "have" typically implies that there is a relationship to the statement to the present, RIGHT NOW. "i've had my car towed so i can't go anywhere right now, sorry man."

whereas if you said "i'd had my car towed..." well, you'd say that if you were telling a story or something, but not if you were telling your best bro about how you can't go out to the quad beer dipping and apple chogging, because "had" indicates something was relevant in the past, and not the present.

>whomst'd've

>whilst
just say while you fucker

But it sounds smart!

phrases I hate:
in medieval times
in the old days
the ancient XYZ
during the ottoman occupation of vienna...
during the thirty years war...
during the crusades...

>ottoman occupation of vienna

Do you mean the Siege of Vienna?

woops, yea, that's what I meant. Somehow mixed it up with Latin oppugnatio...

autism

what is the issue with this word

nothing. they just want to see the world as simple. black and white. good and evil. us and them. no in between.

But most fo the times, there is no in betweens. People make things more difficult then it should be.

Kept.

problematic

That's a proper word, though.

>I
Never write first person stories, there has never been a good one

Albeit.

>very

>call him Ishmael

>Marianne suddendly said: "I can no longer take this"

fuck you.

>Marianne suddendly said that she could no longer take this
fuck me.

Nothing, ignore this thread.

>tfw You can't use this word without sounding like a tumbrlite

Just say problemish

'context'

Thus

Necessarily

Quite.

Used by every Brit to sound smart ever

Time police nowhere near a beach tomorrow night but I have to do with me right now so we should smoke cigs you sleep well if you wanna come. I will seriously consider that as soon as I have no money for the most efficient material from any computer or even a hor to.

Okay situation to use it (in my opinion)
>Quite a while
and other related phrases

>had'd

killy self