had had

[RonBee]

Re:

• Smith, where Jones had had "had had" had had "had", "had had" had had the examiner's approval.

I think I have finally figured that one out.

:wink:

[Tdol]

I remember hearing an example with ten 'hads', but I've forgotten it. ;-|

[filecore]

The way I learned it, I have a slightly different (and, in my opinion, better) structure and explanation.

Original problem:

Smith where Jones had had had had had had had had had had had the examiner's approval.

Given in this forum:

Smith, where Jones had had "had had" had had "had", "had had" had had the examiner's approval.

My own solution:

Smith, where Jones had had "had", had had "had had". "Had had" had had the examiner's approval.

First, your explanation is not as good for understanding the grammatical structures (making things out of mixed letters). The explanation I learned is that both students were writing a short essay (and you can use this to give practical examples of both sorts of text): Jones wrote a sentence using "had", and Smith wrote a sentence using "had had". The sentence could have been "John ______ an apple, but then he had lost it". In this context, "had had" would get the examiner's approval because it's correct, whereas "had" isn't, because of all that stuff mentioned earlier which I'm not going to repeat again.

This is also clearer structurally, because not only does breaking it into two sentences provide clarity of text (taking the phrase about the students' answers seperately from the information about the examiner's approval), but also providing a more heightened contrast between "had" and "had had" as choices by referring directly to "had had" in the link between the first and second sentences. However, it's largely a personal preference I think. I hope that made sense

[charmedboi82]

Originally Posted by filecore

First, your explanation is not as good for understanding the grammatical structures (making things out of mixed letters). The explanation I learned is that both students were writing a short essay (and you can use this to give practical examples of both sorts of text): Jones wrote a sentence using "had", and Smith wrote a sentence using "had had". The sentence could have been "John ______ an apple, but then he had lost it". In this context, "had had" would get the examiner's approval because it's correct, whereas "had" isn't, because of all that stuff mentioned earlier which I'm not going to repeat again.

This is also clearer structurally, because not only does breaking it into two sentences provide clarity of text (taking the phrase about the students' answers seperately from the information about the examiner's approval), but also providing a more heightened contrast between "had" and "had had" as choices by referring directly to "had had" in the link between the first and second sentences. However, it's largely a personal preference I think. I hope that made sense

I don't think it's largely a personal preference. I think you need to separate them. They're two different ideas although clearly heavily related. I personally prefer it as one 'sentence':

Smith, where Jones had had "had", had had "had had"; "had had" had had the examiner's approval.


I think that it looks better this way and the link between the two holds together better. Of course, the sentence makes sense, but I don't think it's the most natural way of saying this. Actually, from how it's written, I'm not sure whether any of the answers were changed.