had had

I had read several books that have "had had" and it confuse me. Is it possible and what is the xplanation on have it.

Thanks

This is the pluperfect of “to have”.

()

I know that had is a past tense of have. What cofuse me is that a sentence that have "had had". Example- I had had ... So what is the explanationtion of having "had had" not just "had"

[RonBee]

Example: "He had had a bad day."

In that sentence, "He had a bad day" talks about the type of day the person experienced. "He had had a bad day" indicates that the experience occurred (and was completed) prior to another experience under discussion.

I hope that helps.

8)

Originally Posted by vladz

I know that had is a past tense of have. What confuses me is that a sentence can have "had had". Example- I had had ... So what is the explanation of having "had had" not just "had"

First of all, do you know what the pluperfect tense is? RonBee has explained to you this tense with reference to the verb “to have” – but do you know what the pluperfect tense (generally) is?

()

Originally Posted by vladz

I had read several books that have "had had" and it confuse me. Is it possible and what is the xplanation on have it.

Thanks

The verb "have" acts as an auxiliary verb for the perfect aspects/tenses.

The perfect aspects are formed using "have + past participle".

Now, keep in mind that "have" is a verb unto itself. When "have" functions as its own auxiliary in the past perfect, we can choose to leave out "have" as auxiliary so as to avoid the confusion that you are making reference to now. In this manner it is not the past perfect, but the simple past. Take a look at these examples:


Up until lunchtime, he had not eaten anything.

had - as auxiliary + not eaten - eaten as past participle - had not eaten

Up until lunchtime, he had had nothing to eat. (best example I can think of now)

had - auxiliary verb in the past to form the past perfect - + had - past participle - to form the past perfect -

The past form of "have" which is "had" is functioning as an auxiliary in order to form the past perfect with the past participle of "have" which is "had".

had/auxiliary + had/past particple = had had - past perfect aspect of the verb "to have"

We can leave out the first "had" and put the sentence in the simple past. The meaning is not changed in this manner.

Up until lunch time, he had nothing to eat. or He had nothing to eat up until lunchtime.

Hi vladz :) ,

Welcome to the whacky world of the English language.

It will be good to see this one explained away.

In any language there are terms, adages, word compilations used that seem to be naturally accepted and understood by the natives brought up with that particular language.

To someone learning the language this term will seem silly, nonsense, not logical, very confusing. Or all of the aforementioned in one hit.

You have just brought up one of these instances.

You will have the same kind of thing in your language, no matter how much you try to put over the meaning of a particular phrase, you just cannot convince the student just what is happening.

Here is the classical sentence using your enquiry subject.

It is usually presented without punctuation.

The object of the exercise is to punctuate the sentence so that it makes sense. i.e.

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

An explanation of the sentence is available upon request.

Have fun, smile, it is only a language.

:wink:

[RonBee]

Originally Posted by John D

Here is the classical sentence using your enquiry subject.

It is usually presented without punctuation.

The object of the exercise is to punctuate the sentence so that it makes sense. i.e.

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

An explanation of the sentence is available upon request.

:wink:

Good. Please explain. :)

8)

Hi RonBee :) .

Smith and Jones were given six letters, AADDHH, and asked to form a verb using as many letters as possible.

Smith wrote HAD

Jones wrote HAD HAD

The examiner went for Jones.

Simple.

.

That is that explained away. Now let us see "had had" explained.

.

[RonBee]

Okay. :?

8)