>had had

>had had
this is an obvious flaw in the english language, like a bug in coding which was never fixed

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >the -ice in prejudice and dice is different
    Far from the only bug.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      features that were supposed to keep the undesirables at bay

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        And yet, you're gonna end up speaking Spanish anyway.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Nope.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Si.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Every single piece of print around me, and every spoken word I hear could be in spanish, and yet I would still refuse to learn it. Not happening.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Why?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Errors that were never fixed due to Anglo kings leave the tongue for the peasants while they themselves spoke French

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That's an issue with the orthography, not the language itself. English would still be English even if it was written in Cyrillic.

      features that were supposed to keep the undesirables at bay

      Nah, it's just that English spelling was never properly standardized, it just gradually developed out of the chaos of different scribal conventions for different dialects.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah, there's a million of them. Personally, I think the alphabet is stupid and should be reorganized. All homonyms should be purged. And all silent H's. And all phonetic redundancies. Why do you need G to make a J sound sometimes?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Now that would be a pointless endeavour, let me guess you also seethe over gendered language not being inclusive?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >let me guess you also seethe over gendered language not being inclusive?
        Swing and a miss, Casey at the Bat.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      English was never supposed to use the Latin alphabet. It was a mistake.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Why do you need G to make a J sound sometimes?
      Because velars palatalized before front vowels in late Latin and English orthography is based on French.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >velars palatalized before front vowels
        I almost understood this. I think you missed a word somewhere.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          No, I said what I meant to say. Velars (i.e. velar consonants /k/ and IQfy) palatalized (i.e. underwent a process of palatalization, turning them into /t͡s/ and /d͡z/) before front vowels (i.e. /i e ɛ/)

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Is that a hard and fast rule?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            As far as I know that palatalization is inherited by every Romance language except Sardinian, implying that the most recent common ancestor of most of Romance underwent it.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Neat. I've been trying to learn more about the history of phonetics. Thanks bro.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Sis actually, but thanks.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I learned something from a woman
            NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO I choose to believe that's just how you self-identify and that you're actually a man. Yeah, that's it. I feel better now.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Lol feel free to think that if you like, though I'm not sure why learning something from a transsexual would be any better- don't sexists tend to think even less of them than they do of regular women or regular men?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah... well... SHUT UP

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            nta but I was honestly a bit relieved to find out a poster I see with some regularity who had mentioned having had romantic affairs with men was merely a homosexual rather than a woman. Transsexuals are merely weird homosexuals or another sort of pervert.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I suppose that's one way you could look at it.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The G/J thing may be because some of the words are Germanic and some are Latin. G is just an evolved C in Latin, and J is an evolved I (i not L). This might account for some of what you’re talking about.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >G is just an evolved C in Latin, and J is an evolved I (i not L).
        These are facts about the alphabet, not the language.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The evolution of those letters is linked to word pronunciation, which is what was being discussed. For instance, C becomes G and also the pronunciation changes slightly.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Latin already had a voicing distinction on velar stops, it just wasn't written until the letter G was invented.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    ESLs really DO be trippin on dis fr!

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      English is an analytic language (where word order imparts meaning), not a synthetic language (where meaning is conveyed predominantly through word inflections). This annoys ESLs, but you can point out something annoying about pretty much any language; you just don’t think about it as much of it’s your native tongue.

      For an example of how much word order matters in English, imagine a scenario where a narrator is talking about a past event and something that might have happened but didn’t (I guess this would be a mixture of pluperfect and subjunctive forms). Let’s say a boy could have fallen through the ice in a pond (but he didn’t). If he had fallen, the adult bystanders “would have had to have helped.” A very weird sequence of words indeed. Now you and I as native English speakers understand this, but it must drive ESLs nuts.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Would have had to help*
        And no, it's not a special phrase in my language.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's a quirk of language
    The flexibility of english grammar is what makes it so fun for poetry anyways
    You and your ilk who wish to remove all these things for such petty reasons as 'logical consistency' would profane the language's soul

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Just stop saying it, its a redundancy almost as pathetic as the over usage of the word ‘literally’

    He’d
    I’d had
    They’d had
    As for the ‘it’ pronoun, just drop one of the ‘had’s and no one is ever going to know any difference.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Huh

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    And but so, he had had to do it.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You will never speak real English, Jose/Saar

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Hadded

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >when all that was was innocence

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >this is just like my heckin coding bugs

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The ultimate ESL filter:
    >That that silly thought that he had had had—by that significance that he had given it—revealed itself to have had a poor effect upon that shred of sanity that he once had, had not caused him to forget that he had best not ignore that wisdom that that same thought had revealed.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Nice

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It should have been "had haff this", you can thank me later

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      fanks guv

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Is it? It seems to work.

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If you want a logical language just learn Esperanto. It actually makes sense unlike national languages.

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Phonetically it's fine. I don't see what the problem is

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >I thought a thought. But the thought I thought wasn't the thought I thought I thought. If the thought I thought I thought had been the thought I thought, I wouldn't have thought so much.
    How is this the pinnacle of the modern world and the lingua franca currently?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >verbs can be... LE NOUN????

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        And that's a bad thing

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Why? The syntax makes it clear what part of speech it is.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Though through thoughts thought through

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        wood is good food

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      malleability and lack of inflection. result is hideous but it just werks

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Lack of inflection doesn't have to be hideous. Some of the greatest poetry ever written was written in Classical Chinese, an almost completely isolating language.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Good point. I'm not a linguist, but it seems like lack of inflection in English is what makes borrowing words so simple. You plug them in and add an -s or -es for plurals (I'm oversimplifying but you get it). The borrowing and mixing of many languages is to me what makes it ugly, because there's no consistency in spelling and pronunciation.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I don't think borrowings are all that dense in the average text.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It is if you count words borrowed from french and latin back to middle and old english then they're abundant

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Sure, but those are more integrated into the language structurally and orthographically.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Given the amount of time since the original borrowing some of them are more integrated, but we still see arbitrary patterns of usage e.g. suffixes -ant vs. -ent that at one point had distinct meaning. And with no established rule when new words are coined one usage is picked at random

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >that at one point had distinct meaning
            Aren't they just a matter of different verb conjugations in Latin?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I don't think borrowings are all that dense in the average text.

            English doesn't so much borrow words from other languages as it does follow other languages down dark alleys, club them over the head and then rummage their pockets for new words.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            An old cliche but I'm not sure if English is all that special in the extent and variety of its borrowing compared to e.g. Japanese, Thai, Hindustani, Maltese...

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            actually it would have been the Normans doing the clubbing before their words were borrowed

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There is literally nothing wrong with all those supposedly bad quirks of natural languages. Go speak volapuk or at best Serbo-Croatian if you crave regularity.
    Meanwhile all true literature is written in Italian, French, English, etc.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Is Serbo-Croatian particularly regular aside from its orthography?

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >The dog that he had had had had to be put down.

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    as an ESL I still can't tell the difference between "which" and "that" for expanding on a topic in the second sentence.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      "which" is correct, "that" is more popular

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      "That" is usually restrictive use and "which" is non-restrictive use.

      Here's an example: "It's the hat that I was talking about, which is precious to me."

      The main point of the sentence is the first part because it indicates what's being talked about (a hat). For this reason, it gets the word "that" rather than "which." Notice that the second part of the sentence (", which is precious to me") makes no sense without the first part of the sentence, and you could actually remove it and still have a grammatical sentence. This makes the final part of the sentence non-restrictive, which is why "which" is used (usually after a comma).

      A couple quick notes: 1) If you read enough books in English, you'll come across writers—often even very good ones—who do not care about this so-called rule, and they'll use "which" as interchangeable with "that." 2) There are situations where "which" is used in a manner unlike "that," and in these situations it is fine to use. (For instance, "Which hat do you want?" is correct. You wouldn't say "that hat do you want?")

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        it's just that easy

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Should absolutely require and English faculty

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Should absolutely require and English faculty
      What?

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The weak form is often used for the first 'had'

  23. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    just drop the second had. it almost never needs to actually be there

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >All lowercase posters trying to teach grammar.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        fine, write had had like a chimp. i don't give a frick.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      fine, write had had like a chimp. i don't give a frick.

      “Had had” is the pluperfect form and “had” is the perfect form. It’s like the difference between saying “he had loved” and “he loved.” The first references two different points in time and the second does not. Other languages do this; English just happens to have a situation where you have two of the same word being used. A lot of people who don’t write much seem to think the pluperfect form is unnecessary, and say you should use the perfect form, but it the pluperfect imparts information differently from the perfect form. In a situation where a narrating character is discussing past events, the pluperfect form would often be used because it explains what happened before the past events discussed in the narrative.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You're probably entirely correct, but it's still awkward to read and say. To preserve flow and aesthetics, it's much better to fall back on a singular "had". The reader can still easily parse what is meant, and only rarely is the more correct "had had" absolutely necessary.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          A good point, though I would advise Anons not to mix up the tenses too much (perfect and pluperfect) in a written scene where they’ve already established they’re using one or the other. Also, though some stylistic guidelines tell us that we should stay away from contractions, you could also consider turning the first “had” into one; e.g. “He’d had to leave” rather than “He had had to leave,” which alleviates some of the clunkiness.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        A good point, though I would advise Anons not to mix up the tenses too much (perfect and pluperfect) in a written scene where they’ve already established they’re using one or the other. Also, though some stylistic guidelines tell us that we should stay away from contractions, you could also consider turning the first “had” into one; e.g. “He’d had to leave” rather than “He had had to leave,” which alleviates some of the clunkiness.

        Just a point for clarification, unlike in Latin, which uses perfect to denote past tense, English distinguishes the perfect from past. The perfect tense can be past, present, or future, but isn't used for the simple past tense.

        As for "I had loved" and "I loved", the distinction is more that pluperfect (had loved) indicates past event that has been completed before another past event whereas the preterite (loved) deals with singular past events. Admittedly, there does seem to be a trend to used pluperfect alone for something that's meant to signify absolute finality.

        That's an issue with the orthography, not the language itself. English would still be English even if it was written in Cyrillic.
        [...]
        Nah, it's just that English spelling was never properly standardized, it just gradually developed out of the chaos of different scribal conventions for different dialects.

        It's more based on etymology.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >The perfect tense can be past, present, or future, but isn't used for the simple past tense.
          In english perfect is not a tense, it’s an aspect.

  24. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Stick to your own ooga booga languages, thirdies

  25. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >hadst had
    More like a bug which

  26. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I've noticed this typo in books for all my life and I usually would skip over it when reading aloud in class, and I only had a teacher correct me once and to say it twice.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *