[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 23 KB, 359x359, 1533572475866.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11732335 No.11732335 [Reply] [Original]

>had had

>> No.11732341

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

>> No.11732346

>>11732335
What's wrong with it? It's perfect english. Op had had a bad day before posting this...

>> No.11732375

doesn't " had before" accomplish the same thing and not confuse the reader?

>> No.11732379
File: 45 KB, 383x385, 1534031875142.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11732379

>that that had had that

>> No.11732381

>>11732375
No

>> No.11732395

>>11732375
"had had", "have had", "has had" can be replaced by "had" in all circumstances.

>> No.11732507
File: 55 KB, 200x203, 1460167424768.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11732507

>get got

>> No.11732528
File: 297 KB, 2048x1365, t tau.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11732528

>>11732335
>All the faith she had had had had no effect

>> No.11732553

>>11732395
What if it's a narrative in the past sense?

>That day I had had a meal of day old fish and was feeling rather queasy.

>> No.11732572

>>11732528
Based

>> No.11732592

>>11732553
>>>11732475

Then you can just write "had" and everyone without autism will understand you just fine, even if it's not technically correct.

>> No.11732602
File: 75 KB, 645x729, brainlet.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11732602

>>11732395
>All the faith she had no effect

>> No.11732614

>>11732335
I get so annoyed that that is used all the time. It's like, really? You couldn't of written that more clear?

>> No.11732615

>>11732614
*more clearly

>> No.11732623

>>11732615
Your an idiot.

>> No.11732625

>>11732395
American education

>> No.11732628

>>11732623
*You're mother dies in her sleep tonight unless your respond to this post.

>> No.11732633

>that that

>> No.11732637
File: 1.10 MB, 2597x1800, terry.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11732637

>>11732633
>That that "that that" was unnecessary was besides the point.

>> No.11732640
File: 8 KB, 200x200, adachi getting hit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11732640

>had to of have

>> No.11732648

>>11732640
Name three novels, two short story collections and an unpublished manuscript that do this.

>> No.11732656

>>11732375
> I have a book. Now.

> I have had the book for a year.

> I had a book. Then.

> I had the book before you spoke to me.

> I had had that book for a year when you spoke to me.

> I had the book when you spoke to me.

If you ignore the difference between the last two, you'll then find yourself obliged to say, in the present.

> I have this book for a year.

>> No.11732679
File: 320 KB, 640x444, smug frog.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11732679

>nous nous

>> No.11732686
File: 37 KB, 505x567, 1529128461934.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11732686

>praxis

>> No.11732700
File: 54 KB, 657x527, 1534605450097.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11732700

>>11732640
>had to have had

>> No.11732735
File: 4 KB, 300x168, pengu.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11732735

>>11732679
>noot noot

>> No.11732742

>>11732592
No I think had had makes it more clear you queer

>> No.11733262

>hadn't hadn't

>> No.11733293

>>11732346
The fact that English doesn't have different words for the past participle of have and the preterite of have is olaib retarded.

>> No.11733310

Czech has only one past tense and we are perfectly okay with it.