[ 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: 26 KB, 220x316, Recognitions.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17519145 No.17519145 [Reply] [Original]

>had had

>> No.17519158
File: 107 KB, 1023x681, 1613066939631.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17519158

>>17519145
>irregardless

>> No.17519159

>>17519145
I love "had had" and use it when ever possible. Don't care what people think.

>> No.17519190

>>17519145
>past perfect + past participle

>> No.17519281

>>17519145
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

>> No.17519290

>>17519281
Can someone break this down? I think I understand the first 3 words

>> No.17519335

>Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.
[Animals] [verb] [city] [animals] ... from here I'm lost

>> No.17519665

>>17519145
I'm 1/3 of the way through this and I haven't noticed any silly grammar

>> No.17519705

>>17519665
There are like 2 "that that" in the first chapter.

>> No.17519741

>>17519145
What's wrong with had had? Also this is the next book on my list so it's good to see someone else is reading

>> No.17519747

>>17519705
It didn't strike me as interesting because that isn't a particularly interesting phrase

>> No.17519830

>>17519747
Neither is "had had" imo

>> No.17519873

>>17519830
I agree, that is why I made my post.

>> No.17520365

>>17519290
>>17519335

[the] Buffalo buffalo [that the] Buffalo buffalo buffalo [,] buffalo [the] Buffalo buffalo

>> No.17520589

>>17519335
Adj,adj,noun,verb,advarb,repeat of first 3

>> No.17520736

>>17520365
Ok now I sort of get it but it still doesn't make sense. Gonna change it a bit.
New York animals [that the] New York animals bother[,] bother New York animals.
Without the [that the] and the comma, this sentence makes no grammatical sense, right? Am I still misunderstanding something?

>> No.17521784

>>17519145

ESL here

Is this sentence a proper use of had had?
"If Henry VIII had had a male heir, he would have remained a Catholic"

The first time I saw had had in an English learning book I thought it was a printing mistake.

>> No.17521915

>>17521784
Yes that is correct grammar

>> No.17522204

>daß das

>> No.17522231

>>17519290
>>17519335
>>17520365
>>17520736
Buffalo bison Buffalo bison baffle baffle buffalo bison.

>> No.17522243

>>17522231
Last "buffalo" should be capital.

And if you add the optional "that" as the third word the meaning should become more clear.

>> No.17522342

>>17522243
Also a sentence with the same grammatical structure (but a completely different meaning) would be:

American bison native tribes hunt roam verdant plains.

>> No.17522556

>>17522342
Ah I fully understand it now thank you. Still think it's kinda retarded tho

>> No.17522581

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

>> No.17522588

>>17522581
High school english teachers will defend this

>> No.17522640

>>17522556
You're right. It may be a grammatically correct sentence but it is stylistically poor, although I suppose that's the point.

>> No.17522652

>>17519158
not a word, unlike had had which can be grammatically correct

>> No.17522657
File: 21 KB, 308x475, 9759741[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17522657

i've been holding out reading this because i want a physical copy of the edition that has this cover because the stupid retard on the front always makes me laugh

>> No.17522861

>>17522657
Holy shit this can't be real