You can pretty much always reword the sentence to avoid this. It’s kind of always just bad grammar tbh.
“He wanted to make sure that that window had been closed.”
“He wanted to ensure that window had been closed.”
Yes, OP image is legit someone who is just not very good at grammar.
“I wish you had told me that that was a problem”.
“I wish you had told me that was a problem”.
The same subject, object and meaning.
Speech patterns are flexible and don’t have to precisely follow written grammar. One of the many confusing intricacies of the bastard language we call English.
I would argue that the grammar is better and clearer in your
secondfirst example.Edit: oops
deleted by creator
Oops, I meant first example!
That that was their point that they had had attempted to make there wasn’t clear.
Why not just say, “He wanted to make sure the window was closed.”?
To reword the OP, “All my good faith had no effect on the outcome.”
To reword the title, “I hate when that happens.”
Agreed, almost every time this happens, I think someone’s just being lazy or intentional. As a matter of personal preference, I reword sentences to exclude the word “that” altogether whenever possible, so the idea of two consecutive "that"s being unavoidable severly strains my credulity.
To reword the OP, “All my good faith had no effect on the outcome.”
sometimes when telling a story you want to have a different voice, active voice versus passive voice or something. “All the good faith I’d had” hits different than “All my good faith”
there’s better ways to word this though, while being able to keep the same tone
Right, I forgot about passive vs active. Good point.
One of the major problems encountered in time travel is not that of becoming your own father or mother. There is no problem in becoming your own father or mother that a broad-minded and well-adjusted family can’t cope with. There is no problem with changing the course of history—the course of history does not change because it all fits together like a jigsaw. All the important changes have happened before the things they were supposed to change and it all sorts itself out in the end.
The major problem is simply one of grammar, and the main work to consult in this matter is Dr. Dan Streetmentioner’s Time Traveler’s Handbook of 1001 Tense Formations. It will tell you, for instance, how to describe something that was about to happen to you in the past before you avoided it by time-jumping forward two days in order to avoid it. The event will be descibed differently according to whether you are talking about it from the standpoint of your own natural time, from a time in the further future, or a time in the further past and is futher complicated by the possibility of conducting conversations while you are actually traveling from one time to another with the intention of becoming your own mother or father.
Most readers get as far as the Future Semiconditionally Modified Subinverted Plagal Past Subjunctive Intentional before giving up; and in fact in later aditions of the book all pages beyond this point have been left blank to save on printing costs.
The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy skips lightly over this tangle of academic abstraction, pausing only to note that the term “Future Perfect” has been abandoned since it was discovered not to be.
- Douglas Adams
Which window? This window or that window? Any window? Yeesh. Had you thought to specify that that window needed closed we wouldn’t need this discussion.
Which window? This window or that window? Any window? Yeesh. Had you thought to specify that that window needed closed we wouldn’t need this discussion.
So someone needs to tell him that that that is unnecessary?
It’s crazy that that sentence is totally understandable.
James while John had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher.
Tap for spoiler
James, while John had had “had”, had had “had had”; “had had” had had a better effect on the teacher.
somehow more upsetting than that buffalo nonsense
In the grammar test, Timmy, where Tommy had had ‘had had’ had had ‘had’. ‘Had had’ had had the teachers approval and was correct.
is a semantically and syntactically entirely correct and logical sentence.
deleted by creator
“Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo” is a grammatically correct sentence.
No it’s not, because you didn’t capitalize any of the ‘Buffalo’ to write it correctly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo
No punctuation.
None is required, unless you’re nitpicking the lack of a period.
It is grammatical correct, but it is not a sentence without punctuation.
Okay 20+ reposts, it’s spam. You’re getting blocked.
All of the good faith that I had had had had no effect on the outcome that that sentence had had
Norwegian
Er det det det er? Is that what it is?
Det er det det er That is what it is
All languages united, fucked up
The Chinese have an entire story with seemingly one word that varies only by how it is pronounced:
Now imagine the kids like: “Hey, mom, can we have a bedtime story?” and the mom just going full “shi shi shi shi”
All the good faith I had had had had no outcome on that that in that sentence.
It was right there
This is the way
In Ukrainian, there would be a comma in between "had had"s. I hate that English doesn’t do that. You don’t need punctuation to affect the way the sentence is read aloud, just make it easier to parse.
They’re actually different parts of speech, practically different words, that are spelled the same. Most of the time, unless you’re specifically enunciating, they’re not even said the same! The first one is often weak, and said more like “thet” or “thit”, whereas the second one is always said “that”.
Like in “he said that that window…”, the second one could be replaced with “this window” or “the blue window”, but the first one is a grammatical structure and can’t be replaced with “this”. And again, if you listen to a native English speaker (at least with most accents) speaking at speed they’ll say the grammatical one “thit” (or something like it), and if you were to say “that window is blue” with the same pronunciation of “that” as you do for the other “that”, it would sound wrong. Because your brain knows they’re not interchangeable words.
Or at least you’ll sounds Kiwi 😉
The sound in the weak form is a schwa
Thanks, I hate it.
Thanks, I had had had had it.
All the good faith I had had had had no meaningful effect on that that had not been changed. Had it had an effect, the affect would effect the creaking warped wood that would control my destiny; had it had, of course.
me as a turkish speaker every time I have to use “the” or “que” in a sentence (or choose between using s, c or k)
Pathetic.jpg
