Have we had a topic on "had had"? It sounds funny to me to write: I wish that we had had more time to discuss ..... but then again when I write: I wish we had more time to discuss.... that doesn't gel with me either. So, I'm sticking with had had for now, but I wondered, what do you guys think? Does had had seem redundant? Surely there's a better approach! No?!? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Michael
You know what, I'm now going with: I wish that we would have had more time to ..... that "sounds" cleaner to me.
Hmmm... perhaps, the "problem" in English is the fact that the "had" participle has the same form as the conjugated verb, making it sound strange, mainly for non-native speakers. cheers
why would you? i dont think i have ever written it like that or said 'had had' but i know its out there. same for why. why do you need to put a question mark after a word that is the embodiment of the whole meaning and purpose of the question marks existence? unless is appears at the beginning of a sentence but for the last word it is redundant and stupid.
The collapse of the Old West Germanic paradigms of verb inflections was a hallmark of the transition from Anglo-Saxon (or "Old English") to Middle English. This began abruptly with the Norman Invasion in 1066. The superstratum of Norman French was a powerful force in the evolution of our language. Pronoun inflections were also simplified, and noun inflections were reduced to merely plurals and possessives (which are identical in speech and merely spelled differently). And of course there was the massive infusion of French words, even such everyday ones as "use," "very" and "question".
Is there any difference in the meaning of the following sentences? I wish we had had more time to discuss the research problems. I wish we would have had more time to discuss the research problems. I wish we could have had more time to discuss the research problems. I wish we had, had more time to discuss the research problems.
this is OK . to me this sounds wrong - like it is an incorrect grammar usage . this is bringing conditionality into it - in that there was no way you could have had more time this is an incorrect use of punctuation
yes - the fourth one is grammatically incorrect and makes no sense. the other three, though, are exactly the same. i dont think theres anything wrong with using "had had" - i use it without qualms or hesistations. what i do think is weird, though, is when people say "do do"
James, while John had had "had," had had "had had"; "had had" had had a better effect on the teacher Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Wow, after the explanation it did make sense. James, while John had had "had," had had "had had"; "had had" had had a better effect on the teacher.[3] The meaning could thus be rendered, after some reordering and changing a few words, "While John had used 'had,' James had used 'had had.' The teacher had preferred 'had had.'"
Wow! Eleven in a row! That blows my previous favorite "Is that that "that" that that talks about?" right out of the water...
Just as a further note: This is attempting to combine future and past tense. This is like saying that you wish it were possible for you to have had more time, which would change the meaning of the sentence slightly.
No, it's okay, especially in vernacular language. "Had had" is the subjunctive perfect and "would have had" is the conditional perfect, but that distinction is effectively meaningless in Modern English. Even running it through my head in Spanish, where the verb forms are more distinct and meaningful, I don't sense much difference in meaning. I agree that there's a subtle difference. The first expression leaves the reason for running out of time unstated. It could have been that you simply didn't think to ask for enough time or that you wasted it. The second one suggests that you ran out of time because the clock was ticking and you had an immovable deadline, like the sun going down or the baby waking up. Nonetheless it is only a subtle difference and in conversational speech we might well interchange the two forms without giving it much thought. Indeed. It's perfectly good grammar. Like most English verbs, the past tense and the past participle of "to have" are the same form. You have to get into the "strong verbs," which form their inflections by changing the vowel, to find most of the cases where the past tense and past participle are different: drink-drank-drunk, fly-flew-flown, get-got-gotten, come-came-come, do-did-done... Which brings us to: "Do" has a double duty, like "have." They're both active verbs, as in "to do something" or "to have something," but they're also auxiliary verbs that serve purely grammaticaly functions. "Have," as we've just covered, forms the perfect tenses. "Do" is used in negative constructions such as "I do not think so." We rarely say "I think not," the way you'd express that in many other languages, and we never say things like "I drove not to school" or "The dog ate not his dinner." "Do" is also an intensifier: Johnny, you don't study hard enough, that's why you're failing your physics class. Aw Mom, I do study very hard. - Mary, you don't even know how to fix your own car. No, but I do know a good mechanic and I do have a good job so I can afford to pay him. - Fraggle, I don't think there's anything wrong with using "had had," but what I do think is weird is when people say "do do." No Tim, that one's okay too.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! There was a song called "Do What You Do Do Well." In other words, there are lots of things you can't do, or just don't have any interest in doing. But the things that you do do, you should do well. No, it just looks that way because English's verb paradigms collapsed almost a thousand years ago, so many verb forms serve double or triple duty. It's the conditional perfect. Yeah don't worry, nobody's ever going to test you on that.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I agree that "I would have had" is the conditional perfect tense but he used the phrase: "I wish I would have had" which to me sounds wrong. This is combining the present with the conditional perfect tense which I don't think is allowed in English
I suppose if you give the sentence a different context where the time aspect is more prominent, it does come across as awkward: I wish Columbus would have landed on Taiwan instead of Hispaniola. It sounds better with "had landed." But it's a fine point. I wonder if there's actually a style standard that deals with it. Does anybody have Strunk & White handy?
